Has that been positively established?
I understand that they formed a Bahamas corporation, but I don’t know if the motivation was taxation, or isolating the U.S. corporation from legal liability. Many (perfectly reputable) concerns have off-shore entities, or choose other foreign locations, for strategic reasons.
Also, depending how the relationship was structured, any profits produced by a foreign subsidiary might still be taxable to the U.S. parent.
Heck, even within the country, large corporations choose the most advantageous venue (e.g., by registering as Delaware corporations). It’s just as fair as people retiring to a certain sunny state (that I’m careful not to name), or other states without state income tax - just to avoid having to contribute to their home state once their own kids are done benefiting from the school system.
No matter how flawed their technical design might have been, for repeated use, accusing anyone of tax evasion should not be done casually.
1 Like
I don’t have the answer for you… wrong person to ask. 
Maybe the relatives of the deceased want a closure (and are willing to pay for the next phase of the search)? I don’t know. Maybe the US Navy jumped at an opportunity to do a deep water incident recovery drill? How often such an opportunity comes along? Not something that can be scheduled… lots of reasons other than sheer curiosity at the taxpayer dime.
3 Likes
Although, vessels are lost at sea every year, yet even at much, much more accessible depths one would not attempt to recover any remains (if they could even be located at/near the vessel at the bottom). Any efforts are geared towards possible rescue.
So I agree, other than technical interest/evidence collection, I have a hard time justifying searching for any remains if quite clearly that’s not standard procedure.
I think there are a few possible levels of regulation here:
- establish legal standards for submersible vessel safety (there appears to have been an informal set of testing standards which Oceangate avoided), and publicize these so potential passengers can check safety
- enforce these standards by banning offering passenger trips in the US without the required certifications
- use US financial powers to cut off “rogue” operators from the banking system (like happens with Russia or terrorist organizations).
I’d guess options 1 or 2 are likely at this stage. But note all the paying passengers were foreigners, which may not be entirely a coincidence.
2 Likes
Why should there be regulations? Private enterprises should be allowed to take their own risks and live with the consequences. As far as I can tell, this enterprise wasn’t publicly funded. The passengers weren’t uninformed citizens living on social security. They all should be sophisticated enough to make their decisions to pay for their expensive “hobby” and to risk their own lives. They may have also taken out insurance for their adventure. I do agree with others that government shouldn’t be wasting its resources, other than the initial effort to potentially help save lives.
2 Likes
If an airline set up that decided to disregard all safety regulations, then at the very least the FAA wouldn’t allow it to fly in or to the US. Whereas John Denver could and did kill himself flying an untested microlight aircraft.
So generally speaking regulations come into play once you start selling tickets to the general public. Getting the passengers to all sign waivers doesn’t mean there should be no regulation.
To return briefly to the comparable situation of commercial space travel (which is a very live issue, given the pending Virgin Galactic flight on Thursday), Congress banned the FAA from imposing regulations for a period of time. That ban expires in September and now there will likely be a debate about whether or not to continue it:
https://www.axios.com/2023/06/25/titanic-sub-space-tourism
2 Likes
These are people who can pay a quarter million dollars for their rides. They aren’t vulnerable airline passengers, are they? They don’t need government “protection”. They can evaluate risk/reward and make their own decisions and live (or die) with the consequences of their decisions (including the consequences of their waivers).
3 Likes
That is indeed the debate, as in commercial spaceflight. But a private jet ride from the US to Europe or Asia can cost over $100K and it is still subject to safety regulations (incidentally the most expensive first class suite on the Titanic also cost over $100K in today’s money).
The question is when do you start needing regulation? At a given price point? At a given number of passengers per year? That line has to exist somewhere between a one off trip and a regular commercial endeavor. What if Oceangate had started running trips every day and charging (say) $10K per seat?
2 Likes
I do agree that regulations would be needed if vulnerable population is targeted for space or deep sea tourism, but we’re far from that point.
BTW, I’m not even a fan of space or deep sea tourism. It’s a boondoggle, but it’s a few rich people’s boondoggle. And I certainly don’t think public funds should be used for such purposes. In fact, some would argue that manned space program generally isn’t a good use of public funds. Most space scientists who aren’t involved in manned space programs will tell you that almost everything that can be done with manned space program can be accomplished without people on those vehicles, at a small fraction of the cost of manned space programs. The bulk of the cost of manned space flights is to support/sustain human lives on those vehicles.
Right, but enforceability only occurs when one starts to land that private aircraft at a public airport. This is nothing similar at the high seas, which by definition are open to all, including rogue actors/countries. So, if North Korea wanted to build a launch pad for a private space tourism company, there is nothing in the world to stop them.
2 Likes
But there are plenty of ways to stop US companies from participating in that effort and US citizens and residents from using those services, including ITAR regulations preventing export of materials and bank sanctions preventing payments to North Korea.
The US can certainly prevent US companies from developing “dangerous” things and US individuals from funding/using them. I’m still intrigued to find out if it was purely coincidental that all the passengers were from abroad.
1 Like
Hmm. The aunt “lost touch with her brother” so it seems strange that she would know how her nephew felt about the voyage. Maybe she was looking for her 15 mins of fame.
9 Likes
We can regulate air travel because those planes take off or land at US airports and fly over US airspace. As long as boats avoid US waters and ports, there is no basis for much regulation. I suppose one could ban US companies from participating ( why?), but that already is easy to avoid by incorporating elsewhere, and regulations on advertising are not helpful in the internet age. Certainly no international interest in doing so.
The easiest and cheapest solution is to simply not to commit to expensive complicated rescues-just like those that climb Mt. Everest know the Nepal government won’t bail them out.
Do we really need an entire regulatory system to protect a few wealthy idiots from their own stupidity?
3 Likes
Of course teh US can regulate US companies, but there are nearly 200 other countries in the world from which to set up shop. And many of those countries have waterfront property from which to launch ships. (And all can buy/sell crypto to move money around right under the noses of the regulators.)
OceanGate, Inc appears to be a Washington State-incorporated business, with its registered address there too.
Here’s the 2020 US SEC filing Form D used to raise private equity funds for OceanGate, Inc:
OG SEC filing
It was signed by Mr. Rush.
The Bahamian company owned the Titan AFAIK, but it was OceanGate Inc that was the operating company.
It’s not impossible for the US to assert jurisdiction.
1 Like
The next Oceangate will be incorporated in the Cayman Islands. It is very easy to avoid US jurisdiction.
Perhaps, but this one is incorporated in the US.
And this one will file bankruptcy from all the lawsuits soon and be dissolved. We don’t need a new set of regs for OG- it will be gone before the regs can be written.
1 Like
That wouldn’t stop a criminal action, for example, against officers and directors.
You are raising additional points. My simple point is that it’s seemingly pretty easy for the US to assert jurisdiction here. The previous discussion was that it was very difficult, if not impossible.
