Shipping Companies Sentenced to Pay $1.75 Million for Concealing Oily Waste Discharges
MSC Shipmanagement Limited and Hong Kong Spirit Shipping and Trading Limited pleaded guilty to APPS violations and were sentenced to pay a combined fine of $1.75 million and four years of probation.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 28, 2026, 5:27 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 28, 2026, 5:27 p.m. ETFirst report
International Shipping Companies Sentenced to Pay $1.75 Million Fine for Concealing Discharges of Oily Waste into Ocean
Two international shipping companies were sentenced on August 28, 2026, to pay a combined fine of $1.75 million and serve four years of probation for concealing illegal discharges of oily waste from a vessel, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
MSC Shipmanagement Limited, one of the largest shipping companies in the world, and Hong Kong Spirit Shipping and Trading Limited, the vessel's owner, each pleaded guilty to two counts of violating the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS). The charges stem from conduct aboard the motor vessel MSC Samira III between June 2024 and January 2025.
According to the Justice Department, senior engine department officers instructed crew members to pump oily bilge water into the sewage holding tank and discharge it into the sea, bypassing the oil water separator. They also tricked the oil content monitor by running fresh water through it, allowing direct discharge of oily bilge water. These discharges were not recorded in the vessel's oil record book as required by law. In January 2025, the crew presented the false oil record book to the U.S. Coast Guard during two port calls in Philadelphia.
Second Engineer Mikhail Tsurikov previously pleaded guilty to violating APPS and is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 10. The case was investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay and the U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service, and prosecuted by the Environmental Crimes Section of the Justice Department's Energy and Natural Resources Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 128 Aug 2026, 21:27current
First published.
- Version 129 Aug 2026, 08:52current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.