Shipping Sanctions and Export-Control Board Adviser — Ocean Carrier

The mandate

The board keeps returning to whether its sanctions controls can distinguish prohibited exposure from lawful but complex voyages quickly enough to avoid both enforcement and indiscriminate de-risking. As an asset-owning 2PL carrier, it controls vessels and carriage execution while brokers, charterers, cargo interests, banks and ports contribute separate counterparty and end-use risks.

The adviser will reserve four days monthly, work remotely, attend the monthly Risk Committee and spend two onsite days in Dubai every second month. Quarterly Singapore and Rotterdam reviews are included; urgent written questions receive an initial view within twenty-four hours and a reasoned response within three working days.

The term is eight months, with a possible four-month renewal decided by the board after a conflict and value review in month seven. Renewal is not implied by an unresolved voyage or investigation.

The role carries influence only: the adviser has no line authority, cannot clear cargo, direct a vessel, file a disclosure, waive screening or give binding legal advice. Management and counsel retain every operational, legal and reporting decision.

Work for a sanctioned party, competing carrier, charterer under review, screening vendor or involved bank conflicts with this appointment. All maritime, commodities and sovereign-board interests must be disclosed before access, with new engagements cleared by the chair.

Why the board wants this voice

Directors receive legal opinions and operational recommendations but lack a member who can test how sanctions risk travels through actual maritime execution. Recent near-misses exposed gaps between screening alerts and voyage decisions. The chair wants independent challenge that protects lawful commerce without normalising ambiguity.

What you will own

• Test the board's risk appetite against realistic ownership, control, cargo, end-use, port and payment scenarios.
• Challenge screening logic for vessel history, beneficial ownership, aliases, transshipment and documentary inconsistency.
• Press management on escalation evidence before fixture, loading, route change, payment release and discharge.
• Review high-risk voyage papers for factual gaps, legal dependencies, residual exposure and reversible alternatives.
• Shape contractual protections for charterparty sanctions clauses, information warranties, termination rights and cost allocation.
• Probe incident and voluntary-disclosure decisions for chronology, privilege, regulator expectations and remediation credibility.
• Equip the committee with indicators separating screening volume from genuine exposure, decision latency and repeat failure.

Candidate qualifications

• Advised a carrier board or served as maritime sanctions, export-control or trade-compliance executive with voyage-level exposure.
• Can evidence a decision involving vessel ownership, cargo end use, chartering and payment controls across multiple regimes.
• Interpreted US, UK, EU and UN restrictions in operational shipping contexts without treating screening as legal conclusion.
• Challenged a commercially valuable voyage and documented the evidence that supported rejection, redesign or lawful completion.
• Governed escalation among masters, chartering, legal, banks, agents and authorities during a time-sensitive trade-control issue.
• Maintained independence while advising on voluntary disclosure, investigation response or control remediation.

Non-negotiables

• Can meet the remote cadence and all scheduled Dubai, Singapore and Rotterdam sessions.
• Will disclose carrier, commodities, banking, sovereign and screening-vendor conflicts.
• Accepts no cargo-clearance, vessel-command, legal-signing or executive authority.
• Brings board-level maritime trade-control judgment, not generic compliance-policy experience.

1. 49 words maximum. Which current mandate or investment could intersect with this carrier's trade lanes?
2. 49 words maximum. Describe one lawful voyage you redesigned rather than rejecting after a sanctions alert.
3. 49 words maximum. Can you meet a twenty-four-hour initial-response cadence without delegating confidential review?