A recent decision from a Finnish district court has cast light on the legal and operational challenges surrounding damage to submarine infrastructure, particularly in contested or sensitive maritime zones. The case concerned the Eagle S, a Cook Islands-flagged oil tanker, whose crew faced criminal charges following an incident in the Gulf of Finland that left five undersea cables damaged, including the EstLink 2 power cable and four telecommunications lines linking Finland and Estonia.

Whilst the court ultimately declined jurisdiction, the case raises important questions about liability, enforcement, and the limits of international law in protecting critical infrastructure at sea.

The Incident

On 25 December 2024, the Eagle S allegedly dragged its anchor for nearly 90 kilometres across the seabed, causing significant disruption to energy and communications infrastructure. Finnish prosecutors argued that the vessel’s captain and two senior officers had failed to notice the anchor deployment after departing the Russian port of Ust-Luga, suggesting a level of negligence that warranted criminal prosecution.

The crew denied the allegations, attributing the incident to mechanical failure in the anchor winch system. They maintained that the anchor had dropped without their knowledge and that adverse weather conditions may have exacerbated the situation.

Mechanical Fault, Not Intent

Following a six-month investigation and extensive testimony, the court concluded that the anchor loss was the result of a technical fault rather than deliberate action. While prosecutors contended that the vessel’s poor maintenance rendered the incident foreseeable, the court found no evidence of intent or gross negligence sufficient to support criminal liability.

The charges centred on the condition of the anchor securing mechanism, with prosecutors arguing that the officers should have been aware of the vessel’s deficiencies. However, the defence successfully argued that the anchor’s deployment went unnoticed due to a fault in the winch system, and that the crew responded appropriately once the issue became apparent.

At the time of the incident, there was much speculation that the damage had been deliberate sabotage, with speculation that this was instigated by Russia. The details of this case seem to show that negligence and poor maintenance are more likely causes. Indeed, cable cuts through similar circumstances are not unusual.

Jurisdictional Boundaries under UNCLOS

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the ruling was the court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the crew. Although the damage occurred within Finland’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the court classified the event as a navigational incident governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Under UNCLOS Article 97(1), criminal jurisdiction in such cases lies with the vessel’s flag state, in this instance, the Cook Islands, or the crew’s home countries (Georgia and India). The court held that Finnish criminal law could not be applied unless the damage occurred within Finland’s territorial waters (ie within 12 miles from the shoreline), a threshold that was not met in this case.

This interpretation underscores the limitations of domestic enforcement mechanisms when dealing with incidents in the EEZ, particularly where the flag state may lack the capacity or willingness to pursue legal action.

Criminal Liability Threshold

The court also addressed the statutory threshold for criminal mischief under Finnish law. Despite the disruption to energy supply and communications, the damage did not meet the criteria for aggravated criminal mischief. Prosecutors argued that the crew should have noticed the vessel’s speed reduction, an alleged indicator of anchor drag, but the defence countered that the slowdown was due to engine issues, as confirmed by the chief engineer.

The court accepted that the incident, while serious, did not rise to the level of criminal conduct. This finding highlights the evidentiary challenges in proving negligence or intent in maritime cases, particularly where technical faults and environmental factors are involved.

Industry Implications

The Eagle S case is a cautionary tale for maritime operators and regulators alike. It illustrates the difficulty of attributing liability for damage to subsea assets, especially in regions marked by geopolitical tension. Similar incidents in the Red Sea and Taiwan Strait have shown that cable damage often occurs under ambiguous circumstances.

For the industry, the Finnish ruling reinforces several key points:

  • Maintenance: Ageing or faulty equipment remains a leading cause of cable strikes. Operators must ensure that anchor systems and other critical components are regularly inspected and maintained to avoid similar incidents.
  • Jurisdictional Awareness: Operating in the EEZ requires a clear understanding of international law and the limits of domestic enforcement. Flag state obligations under UNCLOS are central to determining liability and prosecutorial authority.
  • Operational Vigilance: While innocent cable cuts are not uncommon, crews must be trained to detect and respond to anomalies, such as unexpected speed changes or anchor deployment, promptly and effectively.
  • Policy Gaps: The case raises concerns about whether current legal frameworks adequately protect subsea infrastructure. As reliance on undersea cables grows, so does the need for clearer enforcement protocols and international cooperation.

Conclusion

While the dismissal of charges against the Eagle S crew reflects a pragmatic application of international law, it also exposes vulnerabilities in safeguarding critical infrastructure at sea. As subsea assets become more essential, and more exposed, the maritime industry must evolve its practices and legal strategies to meet emerging risks.