Sentencing — failing to keep or provide returns — false or misleading statement — financial capacity — Fisheries Act 1996, ss 75-79B, 230(1)(a), 245(2), 257 & 258 — Crimes Act 1961, s 66 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 31 & 40 — Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2011 — Resource Management Act 1991 — Ministry for Primary Industry v Hasson and Antons Trawling Company Limited, District Court Wellington CRNs 1200850019-022, 27 January 2014 — Department of Labour v Hanham and Philp Contractors Limited and Others, High Court Christchurch CRI-2008-409-000002, 18 December 2008 — Department of Labour v Street Smart Limited (2008) 5 NZELR 603 — Southland Regional Council v South Pacific Meats Limited, District Court Invercargill, CRI-2012-025-1178, 17 March 2013 — Ministry of Fisheries v Alfred Fishing Limited District Court Nelson, CRI-2008-024-1047, 14 May 2009 — Stumpmaster and Others v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020 — MPI v Hawkes Bay Seafoods Limited [2019] NZDC 2599 — MPI v Fonterra Limited, District Court Wellington CRI-2014-085-002986, 4 April 2014 — Maritime New Zealand v Daina Shipping District Court Tauranga CRI-2012-070-001872, 26 October 2012 — R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 — Ministry of Fisheries v Aurora Fisheries Limited District Court Wellington CRI-2010-085-004771, 14 March 2011 — R v Henderson [2017] NZCA 605. The defendant company was for sentence, having pleaded guilty to four representative charges: two of failing to keep or provide catch returns and two of making a false or misleading statement on the catch returns. A co-defendant was the skipper of a vessel and was responsible for completing the returns, but the company was ultimately responsible for ensuring the accurate completion and filing thereof. The Judge assessed the offending as falling at the top of the medium band or bottom of the high band of culpability, and set a starting point for fine of $400,000. There were no mitigating features of the offending. In assessing apportionment of responsibility between the defendant company and a co-offender, the Judge declined to consider the defendant company's previous conviction. After applying various discounts the Judge arrived at a final fine of $62,000, which equated to $15,500 for each charge, and also imposed $130 Court costs for each of the four charges. The Judge also made orders that the defendant company was to forfeit any licence or fishing permit obtained under the Fisheries Act, and was prohibited from holding any such licence or engaging in or deriving any beneficial income from fishing activity for a period of three years from the date of the most recent conviction. Judgment Date: 11 April 2019.