When CBP announced the seizure of $70,737 in unreported currency from the captain of the M/V Sheng Ning Hai during a port call in Baltimore, the enforcement action surprised many outside the maritime industry. For those familiar with commercial shipping operations, the only unusual element was the failure to report — not the fact that the captain was carrying the money. The full CBP release is available here.
This case is different from the typical airport or land border currency seizure cases we cover — but the legal framework is exactly the same. The FinCEN 105 reporting requirement under 31 U.S.C. § 5316 applies to vessel operators arriving at U.S. ports just as it applies to travelers crossing at airports and land borders. The amount does not matter. The source does not matter. What matters is whether the currency was reported. In this case, it was not — and $70,737 was seized as a result.
What Happened During the CBP Boarding in Baltimore
On January 22, 2026, CBP conducted an enforcement boarding of the M/V Sheng Ning Hai, a Chinese-flagged COSCO Shipping bulk vessel calling at the Port of Baltimore. As part of the boarding, the ship’s master was required to declare any currency on board exceeding $10,000 by filing a FinCEN 105. The sequence of events that led to the seizure:
- The captain had previously declared $34,480 during a port call in Searsport, Maine.
- The ship’s agent provided an additional $40,000 to the captain while still in Maine — bringing the total on board to approximately $74,480.
- The captain failed to amend his FinCEN 105 to reflect the new total when arriving in Baltimore.
- During the enforcement boarding, the captain denied carrying currency when asked.
- A physical search found $70,737 stored in the purser’s safe.
CBP seized the currency on the basis of failure to report under 31 U.S.C. § 5316. The vessel was released to continue its voyage. The money was not.
Why Ship Captains Carry Large Amounts of Cash — and Why That Is Normal
It is standard maritime practice for commercial shipmasters to maintain a working cash fund aboard their vessels. The maritime industry operates across jurisdictions, time zones, and banking systems that do not always support electronic payment infrastructure, and several categories of operational expense routinely require immediate cash payment.
Crew wages. Many crew members cannot receive electronic wages in foreign ports, require cash for onward travel, or work on short-term contracts where cash payment remains customary. Even in 2026, cash wage disbursements continue across many international fleets — particularly on vessels with crews from countries where banking access is limited.
Operational expenses. Shipping operations frequently require quick cash payments where credit or wire transfer is not feasible — line handlers, launch boats, shore transportation, dockside repairs, medical visits for crew members, and overtime port fees. These expenses arise on short notice and require payment before the vessel can depart. Waiting for a wire transfer is not an option.
Shipping agent cash advances. The additional $40,000 the master received in Maine is a textbook example of a standard maritime practice: shipping agents issue cash advances to the master to fund port-related expenses, and the captain holds those funds in the purser’s safe until they are disbursed or accounted for at the end of the port call. These advances are legal, documented, and routine. The agent receipts, wage logs, and cash advance records that accompany them are exactly the kind of documentation that supports a petition for remission or mitigation — proof of legitimate source and legitimate intended use.
Where This Case Went Wrong — Three Compounding Mistakes
The seizure in this case was not inevitable. The captain had a documented legitimate reason to be carrying the currency, and the funds had a clear and traceable source. What triggered the seizure was a series of compliance failures that each made the situation worse.
Failure to amend the FinCEN 105. The captain filed a declaration for $34,480 in Searsport. When the ship’s agent provided an additional $40,000, the total on board exceeded the previously declared amount by a significant margin. The reporting obligation under § 5316 is not satisfied by a single filing at the first port of call — it applies to each entry into the United States. Arriving in Baltimore with $70,737 on board and a declaration for $34,480 on file is a reporting violation, full stop.
Denial during the boarding. The captain denied carrying currency when CBP asked during the enforcement boarding. That denial — made before the physical search — is the element that most seriously damages any subsequent petition. A traveler who proactively discloses currency they forgot to report is in a materially better position than one who denies having any. The denial documents knowing non-disclosure at the moment CBP was asking the question, which will be the central challenge in any petition for remission.
No amendment between ports. The window between the Searsport port call and the Baltimore arrival was the opportunity to amend the declaration and avoid the entire enforcement action. The FinCEN 105 is not a one-time filing — it must reflect the actual amount of currency on board at each port of entry. Updating the filing between ports, with the agent’s cash advance documented as the source of the additional funds, would have resolved the compliance issue before the Baltimore boarding ever happened.
The Legal Framework — Same Statute, Different Context
The legal basis for this seizure is identical to the framework that applies to every airport and land border currency case we handle. Under 31 U.S.C. § 5316, any person — including a ship’s master — transporting more than $10,000 in currency into or out of the United States must report that amount to CBP. Under 31 U.S.C. § 5317, currency transported in violation of § 5316 is subject to civil forfeiture — the entire amount, not just the unreported portion above the original declared figure.
The fact that the vessel was released and the currency was seized reflects CBP’s standard approach to maritime violations where the cargo and vessel are not themselves contraband. The ship’s commercial operations were not disrupted. The captain’s compliance failure — and the resulting forfeiture — is a matter between the vessel’s principals and CBP’s Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures office.
How Vessel Operators Can Avoid This
For shipping companies, vessel owners, and maritime agents with vessels calling at U.S. ports, the compliance steps are straightforward — and failing to follow them is genuinely avoidable.
File the FinCEN 105 prior to arrival at each U.S. port of call, declaring all currency on board at the time of arrival — not just what was on board at the prior port. Amend the filing immediately if the amount changes between ports, as happened here when the agent provided the $40,000 advance in Searsport. Maintain all cash in a single, identifiable location — typically the purser’s safe — with documentation of each transaction. Keep records of all cash advances from shipping agents, wage disbursements, and operational expense payments. These records are the documentation that demonstrates legitimate source and intended use in any subsequent petition proceeding.
For foreign-flag operators with crews unfamiliar with U.S. enforcement standards, formal training on the reporting requirement — delivered before vessels enter U.S. waters — is worth the investment. The cost of a training session is a fraction of the cost of a CBP enforcement action.
What Happens After a Maritime Currency Seizure
When CBP seizes currency from a vessel, the ship continues its voyage — but the recovery of the funds requires navigating the same administrative process that applies to any CBP currency seizure. A CAFRA Notice of Seizure will be issued to the captain, the vessel owner, or both, with an election of proceedings form and a 30-day response deadline. The three available options are:
- Petition for remission or mitigation — An internal CBP review requesting full or partial return of the seized funds based on legitimate source and intended use. For a maritime case with documented agent advances and legitimate operational purpose, this is typically the strongest path — particularly if the denial during the boarding can be explained and mitigated by the documentary record.
- CAFRA judicial claim — A formal challenge demanding that the government file a civil forfeiture complaint in federal court within 90 days, shifting the burden of proof to the government.
- Offer in compromise — A negotiated settlement for partial return of the funds under 19 U.S.C. § 1617.
Choosing the wrong path — or missing the deadline — can result in permanent forfeiture of funds that had a clear legitimate source and would have been recoverable with the right legal response. Read our guide on why you must not contact CBP without an attorney after any currency seizure, including maritime seizures. See our currency seizure case outcomes for examples of successful recovery in cases with complicated factual records.
Has CBP Seized Currency From Your Vessel?
If CBP has seized currency from a vessel during a U.S. port call, or if you want to establish compliance procedures for future calls at U.S. ports, contact us immediately. The response deadline runs from the date of the CAFRA Notice regardless of where the vessel is operating. We represent vessel owners, shipping agents, and maritime operators in CBP currency seizure matters nationwide. Read our customs money seizure legal guide for a full overview of the process. Call us at (734) 855-4999, send a text message, or reach us on WhatsApp. You can also contact us online for a free consultation.