June 18, 2017 — Any discussion of fishery management nowadays — official and casual alike — is likely to include musings on what should happen to the assets forfeited by Carlos Rafael as punishment for his recent crimes.
Mr. Rafael pleaded guilty to charges related to his falsifying landing records and laundering cash, and is scheduled to be sentenced in late July.
The courts are working to untangle the IRS and fisheries crimes, dealing with them at one time.
A careful distinction between tax penalties and fishing penalties must be made.
The penalties for the tax crimes will be arrived at through IRS rules and laws.
The penalties for fisheries crimes are stipulated in NOAA regulations. They provide great latitude in application, from a slap on the wrist to a permanent end of fishing for Carlos Seafood. The defense is making an argument that Mr. Rafael’s influence on the fishery is so important — due to his size — that economic harm to others would be too great if he were to be sanctioned too severely.
Infractions in the fishery will result in proceeds from fines and from 13 forfeited permits and vessels, and they should be applied toward remedies for the management system’s failures. Carlos Rafael’s criminal enterprises represent Exhibit 1 of those failures.
While his acknowledged cheating predates the current regulatory regime of sectors and quotas, certain vital aspects of the management of groundfish stocks remain inadequate, including compliance. Managers have been trying to force 100 percent monitoring on fishing trips, but the requirement that vessels cover the cost has prompted a lawsuit, ad hoc funding from the NOAA Fishery Science Center budget, and postponement of implementation. None has solved the problem, and only about 1 in 7 trips is observed. Fishermen may well be fishing differently with an observer, hewing closely to the rules when observed, only to resort to landing all they can when not. Researchers have been able to compare landings from the monitored trips against the others to make inferences about that difference, although Mr. Rafael’s schemes have confounded that effort to no small degree. Furthermore, the financial balancing act that seeks to ease the cost burden on the beleaguered industry could become a much less complicating factor if 100 percent electronic monitoring were to be implemented with those windfall funds.
Read the full opinion piece at the New Bedford Standard-Times