Best case name ever?
Posted on March 18th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, 9th Circuit, Diamond II, Guatemala, Hawaii, Hong Kong, law enforcement, Robert Loblaw, Tai Loong Hong Marine Products, United StatesAsset forfeitures are known as “in rem” actions, meaning that the government is proceeding against a thing, not the owner of the thing. So the “defendant” in an asset forfeiture action is the thing being forfeited. This legal conceit always results in interesting case names, such as “U.S. v. $29,568.23 in U.S. Currency” or, say, “U.S. v. 1981 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz.” But today’s Ninth Circuit decisions bring a case name that takes the crown.This asset forfeiture involves the King Diamond II, a boat operating out of Hawaii. The Hong Kong company Tai Loong Hong Marine Products (TLH) chartered the King Diamond II to meet up with various fishing boats on the high seas to pick up shark fins and then deliver them to Guatemala. The problem for the King Diamond II and TLH is that it is illegal to harvest shark fins. Indeed, under the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, any shark fins found aboard a fishing vessel without a corresponding shark carcass are presumed to be the result of illegal harvesting. So when law enforcement boarded the King Diamond II off the coast of Guatemala and found 64, 695 pounds of shark fins with no corresponding carcasses, they detained the boat and seized the fins.
Which brings us to the name of today’s Decision of the Day:
U.S. v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, 05-56294 (9th Cir., March 17, 2008)
Best part? The Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins won. As Robert Loblaw over at Decision of the Day asks: “what is TLH going to do with 32 tons of shark fins that are five and a half years past their prime?” I’d really like to know if they still have them. I’d hope not.
