Finnish Prosecutors Demand Jail Time for Captain, Officers of Shadow Tanker
The trial for the captain and two senior officers of the shadow fleet tanker Eagle S began on Monday, August 25, in the Helsinki District Court. They are facing charges ranging from aggravated sabotage and aggravated telecommunications interference to lesser charges of vandalism and endangering public safety.
The trial stems from the December 25, 2024, damage by the 74,000 dwt tanker Eagle S to the undersea power cable between Finland and Estonia, as well as four telecommunications cables. Prosecutors told the court that the laden tanker, which was registered in the Cook Islands, dragged its anchor for a distance of at least 55 miles in the Baltic. For the first time, they also said in court that the vessel appeared to slow as it passed over the cables, and they contended that if the Finnish authorities had not intervened and seized the tanker, it would have done more damage as it continued its trip.
The prosecution is reported to be demanding jail time for the master of the vessel, Captain Davit Vadatchkoria, a Georgia national, Robert Egizaryan, another Georgian who was the first officer, and Santosh Kumar Chaurasia, an Indian who was the second officer on the vessel. The Finnish news outlet Yle reports the prosecution called for sentences of two and a half years in prison, which is near the minimum of two years under the law. The maximum for aggravated sabotage (criminal mischief) is 10 years in prison, while the aggravated charges for interfering with telecommunications are up to five years.
They are saying the charges are “aggravated” because their actions were intentional and deliberate. Prosecutors assert the crew was required to operate the vessel safely.
The three individuals are pleading not guilty to the charges. The captain speaking to the Swedish Yle last week said it was a “maritime accident.” Defense lawyers reiterated the claim that it was an accident. The captain claimed to Yle that no alarms sounded and that they did not sense changes in the ship. In court, it was revealed that the ship stopped at midday due to an engine problem and was experiencing heavy weather in the Baltic.
They have not said when the anchor was deployed, but they are saying a broken safety pin could have caused it to come loose. The court was also told that the braking system for the anchor was heavily rusted and inoperable.
The Vessel Traffic Service had made an inquiry to the ship during the afternoon, at which time they said the second officer denied that the anchor was down. It was not until 1845 that they were told they were dragging something on the seafloor and instructed to raise the anchor. The officers claimed that a check of the mooring deck at dinner time that night was not safe because of the weather.
The court will also have to take up the question of jurisdiction. The UAE-based shipping company that managed the Eagle S contends Finland lacks authority because the damage happened in international waters and points out that Finland was not endangered because it sends power to Estonia. During the hearing today, the court was told a manager from the shipping company had instructed the captain to delete a report showing the vessel had crossed over the damaged cables.
The prosecution is also asking the court to consider compensation for the damage and repairs. The Finnish and Estonian companies have said it cost them more than $70 million to repair the cables, which were out of service for months.
Finland conducted a Port State inspection on the Eagle S at the beginning of January and reported 53 deficiencies ranging from fire safety to structural conditions and violations of the Master Labor Contract for seafarers. They reported that radar and firefighting equipment were inoperable and problems in the cargo pump room. The vessel was detained in Finland for 53 days before it was permitted to sail.
The incident raised awareness of the dangers to the subsea infrastructure and the issues with the shadow fleet. Baltic and Scandinavian countries increased their monitoring of the shadow fleet and began challenging the vessels on documentation, including insurance coverage. The countries were also successful in getting NATO to deploy additional resources to the Baltic and North Sea. Russia has responded, denying knowledge of the vessels’ actions, and calling the Western efforts piracy, vowing to defend the shadow fleet tankers.