June 21, 2017 (Saving Seafood) – The mayor of New Bedford, Massachusetts is calling on NOAA to protect the innocent, preserve waterfront jobs, and avoid economic harm as the Carlos Rafael case nears the end of its sentencing phase. Citing long-standing Department of Justice rules, Mayor Jon Mitchell urges the federal government, in a letter to then-Acting NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Sam Rauch, to resolve the case in a way that minimizes harm.
The mayor noted that Department of Justice policy “directs federal prosecutors to take into account the effect their decisions may have on innocent third parties.” He cites the Principles of Federal Prosecution (Section 9-28.1100), which “speak directly to the possible need for restraint in cases of corporate misfeasance, where punishment that results in the demise of the business itself would cause harm to employees, shareholders, suppliers and other constituents of the business.”
Mr. Rafael, owner of one of the largest groundfish businesses in New England, pled guilty in March to fish mislabeling, falsifying federal records, conspiracy, and other charges. The sentence is expected to be handed down in July.
Mayor Mitchell acknowledges that Mr. Rafael’s sentence should result in the forfeiture of his groundfish permits and “be sufficient to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct.” But the mayor also warns that it should be handled in a way that is least disruptive to the hundreds on the New Bedford waterfront who depend on the businesses that are based around those permits.
“Although I believe that Rafael should not be allowed to profit from permits he has abused, numerous others in Greater New Bedford, who played no part in his fraudulent scheme, also depend on the landings associated with those permits for their livelihoods,” the mayor writes. “The decisions concerning the forfeiture or revocation of Rafael’s permits should take their interests into account.”
The mayor, who as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney worked with NOAA law enforcement on several successful prosecutions prior to serving as mayor, contends that there is existing precedent for such a decision, pointing to past sentencing practices.
By allowing Mr. Rafael to transfer his permits to willing buyers in New Bedford, and transferring the profits of the sale of those permits to the government, the mayor argues that the federal government can achieve its main goals—“a clear general deterrence message and the removal of Rafael from the business of fishing”—without causing harm to workers in New Bedford.
The mayor also notes that this option may be the only way for the government to compel Mr. Rafael to leave the fishing industry entirely.
“If, as it appears, the government does not have sufficient evidence or the legal authority to pursue the forfeiture all of Rafael’s permits and vessels not named in the criminal indictment, Rafael will be able to use his remaining permits, largely to fish for scallops,” the mayor writes. “This scenario would result in harm to the businesses that rely on his groundfish landings, while Rafael could continue to profit from scallop landings—— even from his jail cell.”
According to the mayor, those in New Bedford who would be affected by any permit forfeiture include 285 fishermen who are directly employed by Mr. Rafael, as well as hundreds more directly employed in supporting businesses. Many businesses on the waterfront—“gear menders and manufacturers, fuel companies, vessel outfitters, settlement houses, welders, lumpers, ice houses, truckers”—depend on Mr. Rafael’s permits for a significant portion of their revenue.
“Approximately seventy percent of the fuel supplied to fishing vessels by Bay Fuels, a fueling company based on the New Bedford waterfront, is sold to Mr. Rafael; thirty percent of the fishing gear manufactured by New Bedford-based Reidar’s Trawling is sold to Mr. Rafael; and seventy five percent of the groundfish landed at the Whaling City Display Auction is landed by Rafael’s boats,” the mayor writes.
The Port of New Bedford as a whole also relies on Mr. Rafael’s businesses for diversity in its landings. If Mr. Rafael’s permits were dispersed, the Port would be forced to rely almost solely on revenues from one species, Atlantic scallops, making it more vulnerable to potential downturns.