Oh dear Sunseeker

[Seastoke]

They have been fined for importing ilegal teak not a good start to new owners.

 

[roa312]

Sunseeker handed £240k fine for using illegal ‘blood’ teak from Myanmar on vessels

In a statement, Sunseeker confirmed that, following an investigation by the UK’s Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), it had been fined £358,000 (including
costs and confiscation) for a failure to exercise due diligence and related offences, when placing timber or timber products on the UK market, contrary to the Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the Market) Regulations (UKTR).

‘The unintended failure resulted from a change in legislation on 1 January 2021, following the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union (EU) (Brexit),’ Sunseeker said in a statement.

‘Although Sunseeker continued to use its existing EU-based supply chain and was undertaking the exact same commercial activity (namely, procuring timber/timber products from the EU) as it had done prior to 1 January 2021, the effect of Brexit was to impose additional due diligence obligations on Sunseeker whenever it procured timber or timber products from the EU, duplicating the due diligence obligations of its EU-based suppliers,’ the statement said.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Saw this yesterday, fact is that the fine is microscopic in comparison to SS business revenues and could represent the teak decking cost alone on a 120’er. So we don’t know, but it’s feasible that a client demanded Burmese teak, SS went ahead at a premium charge, and swallowed the fine later. Who knows. Speculation.

 

[Seastoke]

That does not make it right it's like ordering other illegal products.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

I didn’t say it was alright.

 

[benjenbav]

They have been fined for importing ilegal teak not a good start to new owners.

The case relates to events dating back a few years.

There’s no way it wasn’t disclosed to the new owners in the due diligence process - and fully taken into account - albeit the judgment post-dates their acquisition.

The reporting suggests that this was the first case heard under these regulations.

Perhaps Sunseeker carried on buying through old supply lines and failed to adjust properly when the new regulations came into effect?

Whatever, I’m sure that it was a set of mistakes rather than intentional illegality.

 

[KevinV]

The case relates to events dating back a few years.

There’s no way it wasn’t disclosed to the new owners in the due diligence process - and fully taken into account - albeit the judgment post-dates their acquisition.

The reporting suggests that this was the first case heard under these regulations.

Perhaps Sunseeker carried on buying through old supply lines and failed to adjust properly when the new regulations came into effect?

Whatever, I’m sure that it was a set of mistakes rather than intentional illegality.

The Dutch newspaper I read did an investigation into this a year or two back with regard to a Dutch super yacht yard - it was (from memory) a really dodgy construction of a previous supplier setting up a single-use shipping company in Czechia, where there were limited checks on such imports, trains-shipped to the US (who accepted it as cosher because it shipped from the EU) for fabrication with a sub-contractor, then fitted in Holland by which time the provenance was sufficiently obfuscated.

At that time it was hard to prove the yard knew it was dodgy, or had any liability for it being dodgy (the liability being laid at the initial importer's door, now defunct), but I guess they have managed to pin it on Sun seeker.

 

[dunedin]

The case relates to events dating back a few years.

There’s no way it wasn’t disclosed to the new owners in the due diligence process - and fully taken into account - albeit the judgment post-dates their acquisition.

The reporting suggests that this was the first case heard under these regulations.

Perhaps Sunseeker carried on buying through old supply lines and failed to adjust properly when the new regulations came into effect?

Whatever, I’m sure that it was a set of mistakes rather than intentional illegality.

The tightening of the rules have been widely known about for many years, even by those not in the trade. One would think any reputable company using teak would have checked, double checked and triple checked the processes and paperwork for any teak it took delivery of.

 

[Seastoke]

No excuse for an international renown boat builder and the fine is substantial , compared to there profits. You could buy a new Bayliner with that money.

 

[ari]

Saw this yesterday, fact is that the fine is microscopic in comparison to SS business revenues and could represent the teak decking cost alone on a 120’er. So we don’t know, but it’s feasible that a client demanded Burmese teak, SS went ahead at a premium charge, and swallowed the fine later. Who knows. Speculation.

You think that it's 'feasible' that Sunseeker deliberately and knowingly fitted illegal teak to a boat!? That's a hell of an accusation! Interested to know what kind of inside information you (must presumably be) basing that on! Do you work at Sunseeker?

 

[Sticky Fingers]

No, I just smell a rat. It was speculation. As others above have said, it seems very implausible that a company of SS stature and reputation could fail to be aware of their obligations in respect of the ethical sourcing of their materials and the associated supply chain. If this was some tinpot manufacturer in a third world country I’d believe it.

 

[ari]

But plausible that they would cheerfully break the law? Mmmokay...

 

[KevinV]

My memory isn't too bad, here's the article I mentioned:

Hoe teakhout uit Myanmar illegaal bij Nederlandse superjachtbouwers belandt

It looks like Sunseeker did the same, but post-brexit changes in UK law mean the yard is supposed to do due diligence on where the timber came from - no idea how that's supposed to work.