How a Sanctioned Tanker Exposes Gaps in EU Sanctions

The journey of the 58,000-ton oil tanker highlights both the reach and the limitations of the European Union’s sanctions regime targeting Russia’s shadow fleet. Added to the EU sanctions list in July, the ageing tanker continued operating across global trade routes, illustrating how sanctioned vessels can still move oil despite mounting restrictions. The case underscores the challenges regulators face in enforcing maritime sanctions in an interconnected global shipping system.

Red Flags and Sanction Triggers

Before being blacklisted, the Vessel exhibited multiple indicators commonly associated with Russia’s shadow fleet. According to maritime intelligence firm Windward, the vessel underwent frequent name and ownership changes, shifted its flag to Sierra Leone, and repeatedly disabled its AIS transponders practices viewed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) as high-risk except in rare circumstances.

These behaviors, combined with its advanced age and opaque ownership structure, ultimately led to its inclusion in the EU’s 18th sanctions package against Russia. The impact was immediate but limited. After arriving near Kochi, India, the tanker delayed unloading its Russian crude cargo, likely due to insurance and contractual complications following the sanctions. However, it ultimately discharged the oil and remained operational, demonstrating that EU measures can disrupt but not fully halt shadow fleet activities.

Sanctions Evasion and the Limits of Enforcement

Following its designation, the Vessel’s rapidly changed ownership again, registering under a little-known Samoan company with links to other sanctioned shipping entities. It continued trading through ship-to-ship (STS) transfers an established method used to obscure cargo origins before delivering oil to India and later China.

Data from analytics firm kpler shows that EU sanctions reduce vessel productivity by around 30 percent, compared to a 70 percent reduction for ships sanctioned by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). While EU sanctions restrict access to European ports, insurance, and crew, vessels retain the right of innocent passage through international waters. This allows them to continue operating on limited routes, primarily between Russia, India, and China, albeit less efficiently and often with prolonged delays and uneconomic voyages.

The case demonstrates that while EU sanctions are increasingly disruptive to Russia’s shadow fleet, they remain porous. Vessels can adapt through ownership changes, alternative insurance arrangements, and STS transfers, allowing crude exports to continue. As regulators expand blacklists and monitoring, the contrast between EU and US enforcement effectiveness highlights the need for stronger coordination, tighter controls, and economic deterrents if sanctions are to significantly curb illicit maritime trade.