Connect with us

Legal

Investigations on Dan-Bunkering over alleged Syrian jet fuel deal start

Trading volumes of jet fuel by Bunker Holding subsidiary might be three times bigger than expected, reports DR.
Admin

Published

7 years ago

on

5d70875f1198a 1567655775

Investigations on Dan-Bunkering over an alleged Syrian jet fuel deal, a violation of the EU Syria sanctions, have officially started with trading volumes believed to the triple than initially though; Danish media DR has shared the latest (English version) of the updated developments with Manifold Times:

The Danish State Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime (SØIK) is now investigating the bunker company Dan-Bunkering on suspicion of violation of the EU Syria sanctions.

The investigation has been given high priority after the case became subject to political scrutiny following a series of revelations by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR). Dan-Bunkering is part of Denmark-based Bunker Holding, the world’s second-largest bunker company.

According to the State Prosecutor – who deals with serious economic crime as well as special international criminal proceedings – the police is working hard to reach a conclusion in the case.

– This case has top priority and is one of the most important cases we are investigating, State Prosecutor Morten Niels Jakobsen said in an interview with DR.

Citing U.S. court records and confidential information in the possession of the Danish authorities, DR reported in April that Dan-Bunkering was involved in supplies of at least 30,000 metrics tons of jet fuel for the civil war in Syria. According to Russia’s Foreign Ministry, the company that ordered the supplies was in charge of supplying fuel for Russian fighter jets conducting air raids in Syria.

In June, another exposé by DR showed that U.S. authorities had issued several warnings to Denmark about Dan-Bunkering in 2016 when the Russian bombings in Syria were at their peak. The Danish police, however, failed to take action.

Following the recent media attention, the State Prosecutor has now assigned eight senior officers to investigate the company, according to the Danish Minister of Justice Nick Hækkerup, who has asked the Attorney General for regular updates on the investigation.

– The Dan-Bunkering case is a very serious case concerning sanctions which were imposed by EU leaders in reaction to the bombings of civilians in Syria. I expect to see significant progress in the investigation soon, Hækkerup said in a hearing about the case in the Danish Parliament last week.

Denmark received warnings from US authorities

In the hearing, the minister sharply criticized the Danish prosecution service for failing to initiate an investigation in the fall of 2016, when it received intelligence originating from US authorities, alleging that Dan-Bunkering had facilitated ship-to-ship-transfers of jet fuel to specific Russian tankers which subsequently delivered the jet fuel to Syria.

In February 2017, the Danish Business Authority had also reported Dan-Bunkering to the State Prosecutor for violation of the EU jet fuel ban and stated that the case was urgent due to “substantiated suspicion that the illegal action was still on-going”.

In spite of this, it took several recent revelations by DR to make the State Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime initiate an actual investigation into the company.

– It is paramount that the authorities react promptly and firmly to possible sanction violations. In this case, the police and the prosecution service have failed their responsibility, Hækkerup said, in unusually frank language.

Jet fuel case might be three times bigger

Shortly after, in a new exposé, DR revealed secret information submitted by Dan-Bunkering’s bank, Danske Bank, showing that the company’s potential sanctions-busting might be three times bigger than previously known.

DR’s initial report from April 2019 described six jet fuel deliveries for use in Syria, amounting to at least DKK 104 million.

But now, a confidential report submitted by Danske Bank to the Danish authorities detailed transactions totaling DKK 342 million (approx. USD 50 million) between Dan-Bunkering and the Russian company Maritime in 2016 and 2017.

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that Maritime supplied jet fuel for the Russian air strikes in Syria.

The report seen by DR revealed around 40 transactions between Maritime and Dan-Bunkering from December 2016 to July 2017. In the report, Danske Bank stated that it does not know if all 40 transactions were payments for delivery of jet fuel, however, the bank cited several suspicious circumstances.
In addition, Danske Bank forwarded evidence showing that Dan-Bunkering plays a role in a U.S. criminal case about illegal deliveries of jet fuel to Syria.

Dan-Bunkering is not identified by name or charged in the U.S. case, in which three Syrians and five Russians – including four Maritime employees – have been indicted for violating U.S economic sanctions against Syria.

Danske Bank sent its report to the authorities in August 2018 and the confidential bank information is now part of the investigation initiated by the Danish State Prosecutor.

Dan-Bunkering denies having violated sanctions

Dan-Bunkering declined to comment on the substance of the report from Danske Bank.

– As previously mentioned, Dan-Bunkering finds it natural to continue its dialogue about this case directly with the authorities. Because of this, Dan-Bunkering does not wish to comment on questions raised by the media. (…) Furthermore, Dan-Bunkering cannot comment on specific customer relations. However, I can inform you that Dan-Bunkering maintains that it has not violated any existing sanctions, Dan-Bunkering’s attorney wrote in an e-mail to DR. Dan-Bunkering has not been indicted or charged in the case.

Dan-Bunkering, a subsidiary of Bunker Holding and part of the United Shipping and Trading Company (UTSC), is owned by Danish billionaire Torben Østergaard-Nielsen.

Dan-Bunkering has previously confirmed delivering jet fuel to the Russian tankers named in DR’s coverage, but said that none of Dan-Bunkering’s delivery documents showed Syria as their destination. Dan-Bunkering has not specified which delivery documents the company is referring to or which destinations were named in the documents.

Violation of the EU Syria Sanctions is punishable by fine or up to four years of imprisonment under the Danish Criminal Code.

Earlier coverage leading to the recent development can be found below:

Related: Danske Bank casts doubts on Dan-Bunkering reason for Syria investigation
Related: Danske Bank reported Dan-Bunkering to police in EU sanctions case
Related: Bunker company acknowledges flawed statement in EU sanctions case
Related: Unioil Supply dragged into Dan-Bunkering sanctions allegations
Related: Dan-Bunkering has not violated EU’s sanctions against Syria, it insists
Related: Nordea highlights stance on compliance after Dan-Bunkering discovery
Related: Danish media alleges Dan-Bunkering jet fuel deliveries during Syria war

Source: DR
Published: 5 September, 2019
 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Vessel Arrest

Malaysia: MMEA detains two vessels over suspected illegal ship-to-ship transfer off Johor

Other than the vessels, MMEA also seized a cargo of oil, bringing the total value of the seizure to MYR 260 million (USD 61.9 million).
Admin

Published

3 days ago

on

September 3, 2026

By

Malaysia: MMEA detains two vessels over suspected illegal ship-to-ship transfer off Johor

The Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) detained tugboat and dredger suspected of conducting an unauthorised ship-to-ship (STS) transfer in Malaysian waters.

The two Malaysian-registered vessels were detained at around 3.20am on Wednesday by an MMEA patrol boat after the agency received public information about two suspicious vessels seen operating alongside each other about 1.4 nautical miles northwest of Tanjung Buai.

MMEA Tanjung Sedili Zone Acting Director Maritime Commander Mohd Najib Sam said further inspection found that the tugboat was operated by five crew members, including its skipper, comprising Malaysian and Indonesian nationals aged between 26 and 58.

The dredger was operated by 13 crew members, including its skipper, all Malaysian nationals aged between 22 and 51.

“Further inspection also found a quantity of oil cargo believed to be without any documents relating to ownership and delivery,” Najib said.

Both vessels and the oil cargo have been seized for further investigation. The total value of the seizure, including the two vessels and the oil cargo, is estimated at MYR 260 million (USD 64 million).

The case is being investigated under Section 491B(1)(K) of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (MSO) 1952 for allegedly conducting ship-to-ship activities without authorisation from the Malaysian Director of Marine.

The vessels are also being investigated under Section 491B(1)(L) of the MSO 1952 for allegedly anchoring without permission, as well as under the Customs Act 1967 in connection with the oil cargo suspected of lacking the required documentation.

 

Photo credit: Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency
Published: 3 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Claim

Rajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours

Partner V Bala says bunker disputes depend heavily on evidence gathered in the first 48 hours, making disciplined preservation, accurate reporting and early expert involvement critical to protecting a claim or defence.
Admin

Published

4 days ago

on

September 2, 2026

By

Rajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours

V Bala, a partner in Rajah & Tann Singapore’s Shipping & International Trade practice group, has highlighted the critical importance of preserving evidence in the first 48 hours of a bunker incident, outlining best practices for ship managers to protect potential claims and defences:

A vessel somewhere in the Indian Ocean reports abnormal fuel behaviour. Sludge is forming. Filters are clogging. Consumption looks wrong. Within hours, owners, charterers, managers, suppliers and insurers are exchanging messages. Everyone asks the same question: is there a claim? It is reasonable. It is also often premature. The better question is: what evidence will still exist in 48 hours to explain what happened?

For all the technical sophistication around modern bunker disputes, many are decided less by expert reports than by the first two days after trouble appears. The tribunal may sit years later. The factual foundation is usually laid before the vessel reaches its next port.

Bunker claims are commonly treated as technical contests about fuel specifications, ISO standards and competing laboratory results. They are that. But experienced litigators quickly notice a simpler pattern: the strongest cases are rarely built by the cleverest lawyers. They are built by the best recordkeepers.

The Vanishing Evidence Problem 

Unlike a collision, fire or grounding, bad bunkers leave few obvious visual traces. The evidence is scattered across tanks, samples, engine records, maintenance logs, performance data and electronic communications. Much of it can deteriorate, disappear or become contaminated with surprising speed.

A discarded sample cannot be recreated. A cleaned filter may tell a different story from one preserved immediately after failure. Electronic records overwritten in routine operations may never be recovered usefully. Crew change. Memories fade. The difficulty is that bunker incidents rarely feel like casualties when they first arise. They look like operational nuisances.

The Pressure to Move On 

A ship manager’s first duty is to keep the vessel trading. Engineers solve the immediate problem. Technical managers assess options. Owners watch delay. Charterers want assurance. The commercial pressure to restore normality is intense. It is also the moment when evidential mistakes are most easily made.

Fuel is blended before investigations are complete. Samples are mishandled. Machinery is repaired before it is properly photographed. Internal messages fill with theories. By the time experts arrive, the most useful evidence may already have changed.

The Danger of Instant Certainty 

Modern communication has made this harder. A concern raised in the engine room can reach executives across continents within minutes. The advantages are obvious. So are the risks.

The earliest explanations are often the least reliable. When machinery problems arise shortly after bunkering, the fuel is naturally blamed because it is the most visible recent change. Sometimes that is right. Sometimes it is not.

Yet once a theory enters circulation, it acquires momentum. Months later, early WhatsApp messages or emails written under pressure may be attached to witness statements, analysed by experts and scrutinised by lawyers. A passing operational remark can begin to look like a settled conclusion.

The Documentary Ship 

Shipping remains a documentary business. Despite digitalisation, disputes still turn on engine logs, maintenance reports, fuel transfer records, sounding measurements and superintendent correspondence.

What matters is not merely whether those records exist, but what story they tell together. Tribunals value contemporaneous documents because they were created before positions hardened. They are the closest thing to a real-time account.

Ship Managers at the Centre 

Ship managers sit at the centre of the network: owners, financiers, charterers, bunker suppliers, insurers and regulators. In bunker matters, their role now goes beyond technical operation. It includes preserving enough information to understand what happened if the matter becomes a claim.

What the Best Operators Do Differently 

If bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours, what do the best operators do differently? They treat fuel incidents as evidential events as well as operational ones. While engineers restore function, someone asks: if this becomes a dispute, what will we wish we had preserved today?

They resist instant certainty. Communications distinguish facts from theories. There is a difference between recording that power loss followed consumption from a particular tank and declaring that the supplier delivered bad fuel.

They know samples are useful only if identity, seals, labels and custody can be proved. They keep samples alongside the full operational record: delivery documents, tank soundings, transfer history, engine logs, alarms, purifier settings, maintenance data and ship-to-shore messages.

They preserve physical evidence before routine work alters it. Filters, residues and affected components may contain information that disappears once cleaned or discarded. Photographs should capture the condition found, not just the condition after repair.

Finally, they bring the right expertise to the problem early. They also involve the right people early: surveyors, laboratories, technical experts, insurers and lawyers. A surveyor or technical expert can help identify what should be sampled, photographed, retained and recorded before the evidence changes. Lawyers and insurers can help ensure that notifications are made, communications remain measured and contractual deadlines are not overlooked. The point is not to turn every operational problem into litigation. It is to avoid discovering, months later, that the ingredients of a sound claim or defence were lost during the first voyage after the incident.

The first 48-hour discipline 

PRESERVE Segregate the suspect fuel where practicable. Secure representative samples, seals, labels and a documented chain of custody. Retain affected filters, residues and components before cleaning or disposal.
RECORD Capture tank soundings, transfer history, consumption sequence, engine parameters, alarms, purifier settings, maintenance data and photographs. Preserve original electronic records and contemporaneous logs.
COMMUNICATE Report observed facts, not untested conclusions. Keep a disciplined chronology of what happened, when it happened, who was informed and what action was taken.
NOTIFY Check contractual notice provisions and inform the relevant owner, charterer, supplier, manager, insurer or P&I club promptly. Delay can damage both evidence and rights.
DEPLOY Involve the appropriate surveyor, laboratory, technical expert and legal team before the condition of the evidence changes, not after positions have hardened.

The lesson is simple. In bunker disputes, the law often comes late. The evidence comes early. The party that preserves it calmly, completely and without premature blame gives itself the best chance of winning the argument when the dispute finally arrives.

 

Photo credit: Rajah & Tann Singapore
Published: 2 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: Notices of intended dividend issued for Hua An Shipping and related firms

Creditors will need to produce proofs of debt to liquidators of Hua An Shipping, Hua Guang Shipping, Nan Hai Maritime, Nan Sia Maritime and Nan Zhou Maritime by 11 September.
Admin

Published

6 days ago

on

August 31, 2026

By

RESIZED Drew Beamer

Notices of intended dividend for Hua An Shipping Pte Ltd, Hua Guang Shipping Pte Ltd, Nan Hai Maritime Pte Ltd, Nan Sia Maritime Pte Ltd and Nan Zhou Maritime Pte Ltd were published on the Government Gazette on Friday (28 August). 

The following are the details of the notice of Hua An Shipping Pte. Ltd:

Name of Company : Hua An Shipping Pte. Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No. : 200610919Z
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Hua Guang Shipping Pte. Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Hua Guang Shipping Pte. Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / : 200610922R Registration No.
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Hai Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Hai Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. /Registration No. : 200814299M
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private, Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Sia Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Sia Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No.  / Registration No.  : 200814320Z
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Zhou Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Zhou Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No.: 200814295H
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960

 

Photo credit: Drew Beamer

Published: 31 August, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending