United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Arnold Maurice Bengis, Jeffrey Noll, and David Bengis Defendants-Appellees. Pays/Territoire États-Unis d'Amérique Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Jan 4, 2011 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Juge FeinbergCabranesHall. Numéro de référence 07-4895-CR Langue Anglais Sujet Pêche, Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes Mot clé Préservation de l'écosystème Forêt récréative Gestion et conservation des pêches Infractions/sanctions Espèces végétales protégées Espèces animales protégées Espèces halieutiques protégées Mise en application Protection des espèces Eau à usage récréatif Résumé For four years, three U.S. citizens orchestrated a scheme to illegally harvest large quantities of rock lobsters off the coast of South Africa for export to the U.S. After the scheme came to light, South African authorities could not arrest the U.S. individuals because they were beyond jurisdictional reach, and instead prosecuted the South African individuals who participated in and aided the scheme. U.S. authorities charged the three ringleaders with violations of the Lacey Act (the Lacey Act prohibits trafficking in illegal wildlife, fish, and plants), and the individuals served some jail time and forfeited a significant sum of money to the U.S. government. The U.S. government also sought a restitution order to compensate the South African government for damage to the rock lobster fishery. Although this request was denied by a lower court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the lower court's decision and held that South Africa is entitled to restitution because it suffered a loss of property. Under South African law, authorities are permitted to seize illegally harvested fish, to sell it, and to retain the proceeds; therefore, the action of concealing the overharvested rock lobsters denied revenue to the South African government. The court also noted that calculating restitution would not be "too complex," and sanctioned a restitution formula derived from the market value of the overharvested fish. Although the final restitution amount will be determined by a lower court, initial calculations submitted to the appeals court amounted to US$54.9 million. Texte intégral COU-156299.pdf