Sixteen fishermen are on trial for illegally landing 109 tonnes of cod in 2005, to a total value of almost €186,110, and passing it off as pollack in order to circumvent EU quotas limiting cod fishing. So far, only three fishermen have admitted unlawful activity in one of Sweden’s largest ever fish poaching cases.
The indictment covers some 140 landings made by nine boats in ports on the Swedish west coast county of Halland. The case is serious, according to the Swedish Board of Fisheries, since illegal fishing puts further pressure on the dwindling cod stocks in the Kattegat strait. With these illegal landings, the legal quota has been exceeded by 12 per cent.
Three fishermen have admitted to the accusation of passing cod off as pollack. They claim to inadvertently having caught large quantities of cod when aiming to catch other fish species, pointing out that they had the choice of either tossing the already dying fish back into the water or admitting that they had overfished their quota. According to them, at this point they found out that they could, through the fish purchaser, file the catch under a different category, in this case pollack.
The prosecutor on the other hand, does not believe the cod was caught by mistake, remarking that the scheme stopped abruptly following a letter from the Board of Fisheries informing them that they were planning controls to verify catches.
The rest of the fishermen charged with illegal fishing have so far claimed that they were fishing for pollack, and that they have no further responsibility after landing it in port. The prosecutor did not find their explanation – that the catch consisted of pollack – plausible. One fisherman alone, suspected of having landed the greatest amount, is accused for landing cod worth over €72 000.
At this point, the prosecutor has motioned for each of the fishermen to be fined the profits they made on selling their illegal catch, but he still has the option to request sentences of up to two years in prison if the fishermen are found guilty. The period of limitation is quite short for illegal fishing activities, which are normally categorized as minor offences. This case however, might be judged as a serious offence, since it appears to have been a systematic practice involving several fishermen, as well as consisting of a threatened species. In addition, the fishermen are thought to have engaged the fish distributors to conceal the scam. A fish purchaser also stands accused of facilitating the scam.
The trial is expected to take 18 days and is scheduled to conclude on 10 October. The verdict will be announced at a later date.