Ecuador / Galápagos
The cargo that cost a carrier its freedom
The National Court’s 18 July 2019 decision ordered forfeiture of Fu Yuan Yu Leng 999, identified Hong Long as its owner, and confirmed compensation of approximately US$6.14 million.
Court judgment2017 seizure; 2019-07-18 cassation decision · Reviewed September 8, 2026
What the record establishes
The National Court’s 18 July 2019 decision ordered forfeiture of Fu Yuan Yu Leng 999, identified Hong Long as its owner, and confirmed compensation of approximately US$6.14 million. Its reasoning concerns the transport of protected specimens. The vessel was a refrigerated carrier; this is not evidence that it caught the cargo itself or that all the animals were caught inside the reserve.02
China’s agriculture ministry also took action. Its February 2018 notice found that Fu Yuan Yu Leng 999 had transferred tuna and sharks beyond its authorized activity and ordered suspension of Fuzhou Honglong’s qualification and its 78 vessel projects. This is a separate Chinese administrative record, not evidence that all 78 vessels committed that offense.36
Why it matters
A carrier can connect catches, vessels and markets that are otherwise difficult to follow. This case makes the transport stage visible: possession and movement of protected wildlife had legal consequences even though the carrier was not itself the catching vessel.
The sequence
Seizure and criminal proceedings
The carrier and protected-wildlife cargo entered Ecuador’s enforcement and judicial process.02
Chinese administrative action
China’s ministry issued a separate notice on the carrier and operating company.36
Forfeiture ordered
The cassation decision restored forfeiture and confirmed compensation. Collection of that compensation is not established here.02
Responses and legal posture
The court record includes the defendants’ legal arguments and the intervening appeal. The 2019 court restored forfeiture and otherwise confirmed the second-instance decision; earlier rulings should not be displayed as the final result.02
What remains unresolved
establish catch-origin evidence, supplier vessels, disposition of the ship and compensation collection. Do not turn a judgment ordering payment into a claim that payment occurred.
No operational state direction established in this case record
How to read the evidence labels →Sources for this file
Case 20331-2017-00179: cassation decision ↗
PDF pages 2–8; disposition page 8
Source limits
Procedural history contains superseded rulings and arguments; final disposition must be distinguished from those passages. Payment ordered is not payment collected.
China’s ministry notice on distant-water fishing violations and administrative measures ↗
Notice 农办渔〔2018〕12号; PDF pp. 61–63; sections I, VIII and IX
Source limits
English summaries translated from the Chinese notice. Administrative findings and ordered measures are not proof of implementation or current vessel status.
