Illegal charter crackdowns

I'm glad they are doing so as well. They not only violate the law and hurt legitimate operators but they put lives at danger.

Truthfully, 47 people is not very many on a 147' boat. Operating a boat that size (not under charter), one could easily ask Flag State for a one-day dispensation for a particular party. They would likely only require extra PFDs to be carried. Depending on their flag, I suspect they are already permitted to carry 30 (including crew). Most charter contracts clearly state that no more than 12 people can be carried, so if this was a charter the captain is clearly in the wrong.
This smells fishy, and I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that it was a private party for the owner, and that the USCG has mistakenly applied commercial rules to the situation. Just a hunch.

Could very well be. In reading the story I was wondering how the writer determined it was a charter. I figured it was, and still figure it might be, someone playing the game of a bareboat charter and then "suggesting/providing" the captain. Maybe we'll find out more.

I also was surprised how small the potential fine is. Hardly enough to serve as a major disincentive.

This is a perfectly legal, and only viable (until last week), way for a vessel of over 300T to be chartered in the US.

Perhaps. Another likely scenario is that the boat is owned by a corporation, and they couldn't prove that the beneficial owner of the boat is also the owner of the corporation. In my experience, the guys on the orange boats think more like cops than lawyers.
It would be interesting to see how things play out.

It can be legal and viable. However, it often does cross the line.

What impact do you expect from the change of last week? I see minimal.

Not much, likely. But it's a good way to beat the pilotage costs going to the Great Lakes.

Is the law allowed to "pierce the Corporate Veil" in an in investigation in the US ?

Depends. Corporate veil generally protects against civil matters. However, when it comes to operating a boat and possible criminal acts, it never protects a captain and if the owner behind the veil is personally involved then the veil won't protect. Also, the officers of a corporation can be held criminally liable for their acts and those of the corporation.

When it comes to a criminal investigation, corporate veil have limited value. When it comes to a civil issue or civil fines or litigation it can be difficult to pierce but can be done in some circumstances.

The law of unintended consequences, could be a boon for more yachts to do the Great Lakes, but to change flags and crew for a few months might not be worth it.

I'd venture to say that the vast majority of yacht owners that operate their yachts as full time charter yachts in this size. Would not ever think about or allow someone to charter the yacht and bring 48 people on board. The day charters income wouldn't come close to the wear and tear of the foot traffic.

I'm awaiting for the USCG to start checking out my area.
I hope their reading this.
Jax Fl has these problems. Just no causalitys yet.

Getting picky with whom they bust. Forty-seven on a vessel that size is not really a problem. Wonder who dropped a dime on them?

I don't know enough facts of this case to comment further, so I won't.

Heard the owner took the charter outside broker channel. Rolled and the dice and got busted. But you are correct seems like someone might have tipped someone off.

Customs is really cracking down on giving out cruising permits. If the foreign flagged yacht does charters of any sort, they will not give a cruising permit anymore.

There is nothing illegal in a foreign flagged vessel picking up a charter in Ft lauderdale and cruising to the Bahamas, the duration of the charter must be such that the majority of the time is spent outside the US.