Author: kancelaria

In our practice, we are often asked questions concerning the organisation of cruises. One of the most common is whether a cruise should be treated as a transport service, a tourist service or the hire of a means of transport. The answer to this question has significant practical implications, as it gives rise to several legal and tax consequences. 

This is even more important given that tax legislation treats the issue of transport differently from, for example, the Act on Tourist Events. 

When a cruise constitutes a transport service 

A cruise may be regarded as a passenger transport service. According to court rulings, the essence of a transport service is the movement of people or cargo from one place to another (e.g. the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Wrocław of 27 February 2024, I SA/Wr 602/23). 

Such a cruise is primarily intended to enable the passenger to travel from point A to point B, and its characteristic features include, amongst others: 

• a specified route of transport,
• transport as the dominant element of the service,
• the absence of an extensive recreational or tourist programme,
• the ancillary nature of additional services. 

The last of these characteristics is of particular significance in practice. It is precisely the scope of additional services that most often determines whether a cruise remains a transport service or begins to take on the character of a tourist service. 

Is the purpose of the cruise really transport? 

Authorities and courts are increasingly examining not only the way the cruise is organised, but above all its commercial purpose. When assessing the nature of a cruise, it is worth asking yourself a few questions: 

1. What services does the cruise include?
2. What does the cruise participant actually expect?
3. Would a passenger choose such a cruise solely for the purpose of travelling from point A to point B? 

Re. 1 What services are included in the cruise? 

Assessing the nature of a cruise requires an analysis of all the elements that make up the service offered. It is clear that during a multi-day cruise, in addition to the journey itself, passengers benefit from a range of additional services, such as meals, accommodation on the yacht, and even team building “events” or training sessions. 

The more extensive the scope of these services, the more difficult it is to consider transport as the predominant purpose. 

In its judgment of 9 September 2016 (I FSK 1260/15), the Supreme Administrative Court analysed an activity involving the organisation of fishing trips. The organiser provided participants not only with the cruise itself, but also with meals, accommodation on board, fishing tackle, containers for storing caught fish, space to store their own equipment, insurance, and even fish gutting and filleting services. 

The organiser claimed that the dominant element of the service was the maritime transport of passengers, whilst the other services were of an ancillary nature. The tax authorities, on the other hand, argued that customers did not take part in the cruises in order to travel from one place to another, but to take part in recreational activities such as sea fishing, diving or relaxing at sea. 

The court noted that, under this model, participants did not use the cruise to travel from one place to another – transport merely served an ancillary function to the main service, which was participation in recreational and leisure activities. 

This ruling clearly demonstrates that the more extensive the range of services accompanying the cruise, the greater the risk that the service will be deemed to be of a tourist or recreational nature, rather than a transport service. 

Re. 2 What does a passenger expect from a cruise? 

A very important criterion is the passenger’s perspective. Authorities are increasingly analysing what, from the passenger’s point of view, constitutes the true value of a journey. 

It is worth asking: what is the passenger actually paying for? 

If the passenger’s main expectation is to travel quickly and safely to a specific destination, and other services are of secondary importance, then the case for classifying the cruise as a transport service is much stronger. 

However, if a passenger chooses a cruise primarily for leisure, to gain sailing experience, or for tourist attractions, then transport can only be regarded as an ancillary element to the main service. 

This was the position set out by the Director of the National Tax Information Service in the interpretation dated 8 April 2025 (0113-KDIPT1-2.4012.195.2024.2.KW). The applicant consistently argued that it primarily provides passenger transport services, rather than tourism or training services. It pointed out that the essence of the service is the carriage of participants between specified ports, along a pre-determined route and within a specified timeframe. In support of this position, it emphasised that: 

• it issues personalised tickets for a specific route,
• it does not act as a tour operator,
• the element of gaining sailing experience is merely incidental and results from the specific nature of travelling by yacht. 

The tax authority did not agree with this approach. It held that even if the participants in the cruise are signed on as crew members, perform on-board duties and gain practical sailing experience, this does not automatically mean that the service is not of a tourist nature. 

In such a model, the essence of the service lies not only in learning to sail, but also in the very act of participating in the yacht trip and the associated elements. This argues in favour of classifying the service as a tourist service. 

Re. 3 Would the passenger have chosen this cruise solely for the purpose of transport? 

This question is of particular significance and often provides the best insight into the true nature of the service. 

If the cruise participant: 

• could have easily used another means of transport,
• chose the cruise despite the longer journey time,
• accepts a higher price because of the additional attractions, 

then it may be difficult to demonstrate that transport alone constituted the essence of the service. 

In the case of many tourist or training cruises, the route and destination are of secondary importance. What becomes important is the very act of participating in the cruise, gaining experience, recreation or the completion of a training programme. In such situations, the classification of the service as a transport service may be called into question.  

When a cruise becomes a tourist service 

When a cruise is not solely for the purpose of transporting passengers but is a comprehensive service that includes elements of leisure and recreation, it begins to take on the character of a tourist service. Factors such as a leisure programme, port calls combined with sightseeing, or entertainment activities may support this classification of the service. 

In an interpretation dated 4 June 2024 (0113-KDIPT1-2.4012.195.2024.2.KW), the Director of the National Tax Information Service concluded that ‘the service (…) fulfils the basic criteria for tourism – leisure, a change of scenery and gaining new experiences. The essence of the service is to meet customers’ needs for leisure associated with their recreational activities, including the experience of travelling on an ocean-going yacht, participating in the operation and maintenance of the yacht during the cruise, visiting places of interest along the route, both from on board the vessel and whilst the vessel is in a particular port, as well as relaxation, and not merely transporting them from the point of embarkation to the port of destination”. 

This view is becoming increasingly popular, and the starting point is often the personal feelings of the cruise participant. 

In practice, the line between a transport service and a tourist service can therefore be very blurred. 

When a cruise becomes the hire of a means of transport 

Given that authorities and courts are increasingly assessing the nature of a cruise through the prism of the participant’s actual feelings and expectations, the hire or charter of a yacht may, in practice, turn out to be a service of a completely different nature from the “mere provision of a means of transport for use”. 

The very act of using a yacht can constitute a form of entertainment, recreation or leisure. And this is usually the case, as yachts have long since ceased to serve merely as a means of transport. It is precisely the opportunity to spend time on a yacht that constitutes the main value of the service for the customer. Travelling by yacht is often of secondary importance. 

We will see the difference in a situation where: 

• the charterer hires a yacht in order to travel from Szczecin to Bornholm,
• for the cruise participant the destination is of little importance, as the essence of the service lies in simply being on board the vessel. 

In the first case, it will be much easier to argue that the dominant element of the service remains the hire of a means of transport, or even a transport service. In the second case, however, the question arises as to whether we are still dealing exclusively with a yacht charter, or perhaps with a tourist service. 

The authorities are increasingly emphasising that the name of the contract alone, or the way it is formally described, does not in itself determine the tax classification of the service. 

As early as 2011, the Director of the Tax Chamber in Katowice (IBPP3/443-319/11/PH) clearly distinguished between the yacht charter service itself and a charter combined with additional recreational and organisational services. The Director pointed out that: 

• a yacht charter on its own may constitute a service involving the hire of a means of transport,
• a charter supplemented by skipper services and elements of holiday organisation may take the form of a tourism service. 

The Tax Chamber did not limit itself solely to analysing the mere provision of the yacht to the client but examined the service as a whole and the function it fulfils from the perspective of the cruise participant. 

The issue becomes even more apparent in the case of luxury cruises, where the vessel is equipped with a range of amenities that transform the journey into an “experience”. In such cases, it is more difficult to consider that the cruise serves a purely transport-related purpose rather than a recreational one. 

However, this does not mean that every multi-day cruise automatically constitutes a tourism service. The distinction between a yacht charter/transport service and a tourism service was analysed and assessed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgement of 20 August 2015 (I FSK 832/14), specifically in relation to multi-day ocean-going cruises during which the participants: 

• entered into yacht charter agreements,
• travelled to the starting point of the cruise independently,
• provided their own meals,
• determined the route they would follow, and
• decided for themselves what they wished to visit and when. 

The tax authority challenged the classification of this service as a short-term hire of a means of transport. It pointed out that the cruise constitutes a comprehensive tourist service. The decisive factor was that participants were provided with overnight accommodation on the yacht, which, alongside the journey itself, was deemed to demonstrate the presence of at least two elements typical of tourism services, namely transport and accommodation. The authority argued that the charter of the yacht was merely an ancillary element to the main service, which consisted of organising a leisure trip and providing accommodation and the services of a skipper. 

The Supreme Administrative Court held that, in such a model, the dominant element of the service remains the provision of the yacht for use, i.e. the short-term hire of a means of transport, noting that “ (…) providing the lessee with a means of transport to enable them to travel, combined with the possibility of sleeping (accommodation) on that means of transport, does not indicate that, in the factual circumstances described in the application for interpretation, a comprehensive tourist service is being provided”. 

It is hard to disagree with this view – on multi-day cruises, the ability to sleep on board is a natural and essential part of using a yacht. 

To this day, this ruling remains one of the most important arguments in favour of classifying classic charters as short-term hire of a means of transport, rather than tourism services. 

Summary 

Correctly classifying the nature of a cruise requires a detailed analysis of the entire service on a case-by-case basis. The nature of the service is no longer determined solely by the name of the contract or the formal description of the cruise as “transport”, “training” or “yacht charter”. What matters is the economic purpose of the service and the expectations of the cruise participant. 

The greater the prominence of recreational, leisure and training elements, the greater the risk that transport or yacht hire will be regarded as merely ancillary to a tourist service. This does not preclude the argument that the service in question is a transport service or a short-term hire of a means of transport. This is particularly the case where the participant organises most aspects of the trip themselves, or where the primary purpose remains the use of the vessel as a means of transport. 

However, the boundaries between these categories are becoming increasingly blurred, and the practice of the tax authorities shows that the assessment of cruises is becoming increasingly case-by-case. Consequently, even seemingly similar business models can lead to completely different legal and tax consequences. 

Another issue is that tax legislation employs a specific conceptual framework. This is often incompatible with other legal acts, such as the Act on Tourist Events and Related Tourist Services. This gives rise to further uncertainties regarding the nature of the services, the authorisations required to provide them, and so on. 

This takes on particular significance in the case of international cruises, where, in addition to the classification of the service itself, questions also arise regarding the place of taxation, the applicability of different VAT rates, and the rules for accounting for services performed partly outside the territory of the European Union. 

We discuss these issues in greater detail in our next article, which focuses on the place of supply of services relating to the organisation of cruises and the taxation of international cruises – Taxation of international cruises in yacht charter and passenger transport. 

Law or Medicine 

When I finished school, those who achieved good grades and saw themselves as more inclined towards the humanities than the sciences often chose to study law. Medicine was another option. So high-achieving students went into law or medicine – unless, of course, they had already developed specific interests and plans or had no opportunity to pursue them in their hometown. There is little point in exploring the issue in too much detail here or discussing the rather controversial division of students with “scientific” and “humanities” minds. Looking back, however, this approach did not lead to much good – either in law or in medicine. 

Does the “I get good grades at school, so I’ll study law” mindset still persist? I think it does. Although each new generation choosing this degree is more aware of a whole range of issues, their knowledge of the profession remains limited, while their first experiences of legal work are often deeply disappointing. 

Who is a lawyer today? 

Almost everything, really. It may be easier to say who they are not: a gatekeeper of knowledge carrying a bulging case file, an unapproachable and infallible authority in a suit. Nor are they simply a clerk dealing with procedures. 

A lawyer running a law firm is first and foremost an entrepreneur. And this is perhaps the greatest surprise for most lawyers who establish their own practice. It turns out that someone with a humanities background needs to get to grips with numbers, while an idealist driven by visions of a just world must come back down to earth and start thinking about marketing. And when that entrepreneur begins to employ people, things become even more interesting. 

 Our value is growth 

There are many young people in our law firm. We try to show them what they won’t see at university (though, of course, we are pleased with the curriculum changes that universities are timidly, if somewhat belatedly, implementing). In every possible way, we try to make students and legal trainees realise that a lawyer is increasingly an interdisciplinary expert who combines traditional legal knowledge with digital, business, and communication skills. 

And in this context, the answer to the question of whether anyone can be a lawyer is: not everyone. And for entirely different reasons than even 10 years ago. 

Those who will thrive in this profession are people whose starting point will be an open approach to the profession, a readiness for change and growth. Because only such an attitude will give them a chance to navigate a world that our clients themselves must keep pace with. 

In our article on autonomous systems in yachting – Autonomous systems in yachting: a step towards crewless yachts? – we showed how artificial intelligence is supporting recreational sailing today. Systems like SEA.AI help detect hazards and enhance safety on the water. However, they still play a purely supporting role, with the final decisions resting with the human operator. 

In commercial shipping, on the other hand, the scope of development is far broader. The maritime sector is working intensely on vessels equipped with systems that not only assist the crew but gradually take over operational and navigational functions. 

Built around these advancements is the concept of MASS – Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships. 

Since the subject is too vast to cover in a single article, in the forthcoming instalments of this series we will be taking a close look at the various issues relating to autonomous vessels. Today, however, we will focus on the general legal issues associated with this type of vessel. 

Are there already autonomous ships? 

A good example of the direction in which autonomous shipping is developing today is the Norwegian vessel Yara Birkeland. The vessel was designed as the world’s first fully electric container ship capable of autonomous operation. 

The main aim was to reduce road transport and shift some of the freight to sea. Every day, over a hundred diesel-powered lorries transported goods from Yara’s plants in Porsgrunn to the ports of Brevik and Larvik. Yara Birkeland was intended to gradually replace a significant proportion of these, reducing emissions of CO2 and nitrogen oxides. The project was also designed to reduce noise and dust and improve safety on local roads. 

The vessel itself is powered by an electric drive and utilises systems designed for remote and – ultimately – autonomous operation. This is made possible by the integration of sensors, monitoring and control systems, and technology that enables remote control. 

Despite the Yara Birkeland’s immense technological sophistication, some of its operations are still monitored by operators, meaning it does not yet function as a fully autonomous vessel without human supervision. Even the most advanced vessels still require a human element, and achieving full autonomy at sea is a process that will take many years. And from today’s perspective, it is difficult even to assess whether this is a realistic prospect. 

Where does the problem lie 

The greatest challenges associated with autonomous ships do not relate solely to the AI systems themselves. A far greater problem is posed by maritime law, which has always assumed – and continues to require – the presence of a human on board or within the chain of command and responsibility. 

This applies primarily to: 

• the COLREG Convention of the Prevention of Collisions at Sea,
• the UNCLOS Convention,
• the STCW Convention,
• and national maritime laws. 

The COLREG rules assume that it is a person who assesses the situation, hears the sound signals, decides on a manoeuvre and bears responsibility for the safety of navigation. 

An autonomous vessel, rather than a human, uses the following: 

• cameras,
• radar,
• sensors,
• data analysis systems,
• artificial intelligence algorithms,
• automated decision-making systems. 

Current regulations do not provide a clear answer to the question of whether an AI system can “keep watch“ or follow “good maritime practice” on its own. At this stage, therefore, it must be assumed that human involvement is necessary. 

Furthermore, at international level, there is still no standardised definition of the “master” (captain) in charge of the vessel. However, two main characteristics can be identified, namely: 

• physical presence,
• responsibility for the people on board, the cargo and the vessel itself. 

Another issue concerns obligations relating to assistance at sea. Under UNCLOS, the master of a ship is obliged to aid persons in distress. In the case of autonomous and unmanned vessels, however, the question arises: how would a ship without a crew carry out a rescue operation? 

An AI system can detect danger, send an alarm signal, notify the emergency services or change course. However, it is not capable of physically pulling a person out of the water or providing assistance in the same way as a crew on board. 

At the time the UNCLOS provisions were being drafted between 1973 and 1982, remote control of a seagoing vessel was technologically impossible. For this reason, the term “command” was sufficient to establish that the master and crew must physically be present onboard. 

The most autonomous maritime vessels already operate without the need for a human presence on board. However, as with unmanned aircraft, they are manned by people capable of taking control remotely. UNCLOS itself does not explicitly refer to physical presence of the captain and officers on board. It refers to “command”, which leaves the door open for the existence of a remote operator. 

Such supervision by a seagoing vessel’s operator would have to operate virtually round the clock to ensure constant monitoring of the navigational situation and the ability to react immediately. This model is similar to the way air traffic control towers operate in aviation. 

However, solutions of this kind raise many legal questions. These range from doubts as to which party would be liable for any damage, to the question of whether a remote operator could be regarded as the master. And – importantly – what the consequences of this would be. 

What the IMO is currently working on 

For several years now, the IMO (international Maritime Organization) has been analysing existing international conventions and assessing which provisions require amendment in light of the development of autonomous ships. 

The most important project at present is the MASS Code – a code regulating the operation of autonomous and unmanned ships. Initially, the code is intended to be non-binding, and its publication is expected in the near future. Only once practical experience has been gained will it be transformed into a mandatory international instrument. 

The work focuses primarily on: 

• maritime safety,
• rules for conducting MASS trials,
• cybersecurity,
• qualifications for remote operators,
• technical requirements for autonomous vessels,
• liability rules. 

The IMO’s plan also provides for the creation of a framework for testing and gathering experience, followed by the development of a mandatory code. Under current plans, mandatory regulations could come into force in 2032. 

Summary 

Technologies enabling partially remote and automated shipping already exist today, and the industry is working intensively on their further development. 

The coming years are unlikely to see the introduction of fully unmanned vessels operating without human supervision. A model involving a gradual increase in automation whilst maintaining control by remote operators appears to be a realistic prospect. 

The sea remains an unpredictable environment, and responsibility for the safety of shipping cannot currently be assigned to a system or an algorithm. 

In our previous article – Changes to the AML Package – we explained why the new AML/CFT package will be significant for the yachting industry and why the 7.5 million EUR threshold does not cover the whole issue. 

Now it’s time for a more practical question: will your company become an obliged entity? 

This is important because the answer will determine whether a broker, dealer or other market participant will have to implement AML procedures, a risk assessment, a KYC/UBO checklist, a sanctions screening system and rules for reporting suspicious transactions. 

This is not just a single regulation. 

The new regulations do not result from a single piece of legislation. They form part of a broader AML/CFT package, which includes, among others: 

• Regulation AMLR 2024/1624,
• Directive AMLD6 2024/1640,
• the Regulations establishing the AMLA, the new EU anti-money laundering authority,
• the Regulation concerning information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets. 

From the perspective of yacht brokers and dealers, however, the AMLR will be of paramount importance, as it sets out the list of obliged entities, due diligence rules, internal obligations and provisions relating to high-value goods. The AMLR itself states that it forms part of a broader package designed to strengthen the EU’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing framework. 

The AMLR will apply from 10 July 2027. Of course, there are also exceptions to this rule. 

Who is an obliged entity? 

Put simply: 

An obliged entity is an entity on which AML regulations impose an obligation to carry out customer due diligence, assess risk, document transactions and report suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing. 

This is not merely a formal label. It represents a change in the way a company operates. 

The obliged entity must know: 

• who the customer is,
• who the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) is,
• what is the purpose of the transaction,
• where the funds come from,
• whether the customer or the UBO is a PEP (politically exposed person),
• whether there are any sanctions risks,
• whether the transaction appears unusual. 

In the yachting industry, this does not mean that every broker or yacht seller automatically becomes an obliged entity. 

The AMLR refers to persons engaged in trading in high-value goods, where such trading constitutes their usual or main professional activity. 

Does your company fall under AML – a quick test 

Instead of simply asking, “Does the yacht cost more than 7,5 million EUR?”, it is better to ask four questions. 

 1. Are you acting in a professional capacity? 

A private individual selling their own yacht does not automatically become a taxable person as a result. 

The situation is different for a dealer, a broker or a company that is professionally involved in the trade in yachts. 

 2. Are you involved in the trade in high-value goods? 

For the yachting industry, vessels are, of course, of particular importance. 

Under the AMLR, a vessel is considered a high-value good if its price exceeds 7,5 million EUR. 

This means that the greatest risk of falling under the AML regime applies to entities involved in the sale of superyachts. 

 3. Is this your usual or main business activity? 

A one-off contact with a client interested in a large yacht is quite different from regularly handling superyacht transactions. 

In practice, you need to look at the business model: 

• whether the company regularly offers superyachts,
• whether it advertises itself as operating in this segment,
• whether such transactions form a significant part of its business,
• whether the company wishes to enter this segment on a permanent basis.

 4. What is your actual role? 

This is particularly important when it comes to brokers. 

The situation is different for someone who merely passes on a contact, compared to a broker who conducts negotiations, coordinates documentation, organises the closing and acts as the main point of contact for the client. 

The more a broker is actually involved in managing the superyacht sales process, the harder it will be to claim that their role is purely supportive. 

Dealer versus broker – why this distinction matters 

With a dealer, the matter is usually simpler. If they sell top-of-the-range vessels as a profession, their business may fall squarely within the category of trading in high-value goods. 

With a broker, the analysis is more nuanced. 

A broker often does not purchase a yacht for their own account and does not resell it. Formally, they may “merely” act as an intermediary. But in practice, it is often the broker who manages the entire transaction process. 

That is why it is not enough to look at the title of the contract. One must look at the broker’s actual role in the transaction. 

The 7.5 million EUR threshold – what it refers to 

The 7.5 million EUR threshold is very important, but it should not be interpreted too simplistically. 

Firstly, it helps to determine whether a vessel is a high-value asset. 

Secondly, it is relevant to a specific reporting obligation. The AMLR requires the reporting of sales of vessels for a price of at least 7.5 million EUR, provided the acquisition is for non-commercial purposes. In Poland, such transactions must be reported to the General Inspector of Financial Information. 

Thirdly, this threshold does not represent the full scope of AML. 

If you are an obliged entity, you must also apply due diligence measures in other situations, for example when establishing a business relationship, in the case of certain occasional transactions, and whenever there is a suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing. 

Therefore, the statement: 

“AML applies only to yachts worth over EUR 7.5 million” is an oversimplification. 

To be more precise: 

7.5 million EUR is the threshold for classifying a vessel as a high-value item. This threshold triggers a reporting obligation and confirms the status of an obliged entity. 

Commercial or non-commercial purpose – what to watch out for 

The AMLR applies to purchases for non-commercial purposes. 

If a yacht is purchased for genuine professional charter, tourism or other profit-making activities, the reporting obligation may not apply. 

But you need to be careful. 

The mere fact that a company is purchasing a yacht does not in itself imply a commercial purpose. The AMLR states that sales for private and non-commercial use may also involve legal entities and legal arrangements, particularly where these have been set up to manage the beneficial owner’s assets. 

Example: 

An SPV purchases a yacht but does not actually operate a charter business. The yacht is intended for the private use of the owner’s family. In such a situation, the corporate form alone does not necessarily mean that the purpose is commercial. 

What an obliged entity must do – what needs to be prepared 

If a company falls under the regime for obliged entities, it is not simply a matter of submitting a single notification to the GIIF. 

It is about an entire system. 

In practice, the following must be prepared: 

• a business risk assessment,
• an AML procedure,
• a KYC/UBO checklist,
• rules for sanctions and PEP screening,
• rules for documenting the source of funds,
• a person responsible for AML,
• training for those involved in transactions. 

The most important question in practice will be simple: 

Who is buying? 

Who is really behind the buyer? 

Where does the money come from? 

For what purpose? 

Does the transaction make sense? 

Is there a sanctions or political risk? 

If a client refuses to disclose the ownership structure, the beneficial owner or the source of funds, the problem is no longer merely organisational. It may mean that the transaction has to be halted or that a report to the GIIF needs to be considered. 

Why banks will anyway keep asking – what to prepare for 

Even if a broker is unsure of their status, the transaction will usually go through the bank. 

And as credit institutions, banks are subject to the AML regime. Furthermore, the AMLR imposes reporting obligations on credit and financial institutions providing services relating to the purchase or transfer of ownership of certain high-value goods. 

In practice: the bank may ask about: 

• bill of sale,
• the source of funds,
• the buyer’s structure,
• the beneficial owner,
• the purpose of the purchase,
• the country of registration of the yacht,
• sanctions and PEP status. 

A professional broker should prepare the client for these questions in advance, rather than only once the transfer has been held up. 

What to do right now – how to prepare 

Companies operating in, or planning to enter, the superyacht sector should start by asking themselves one question: 

Could my business model mean I’m classified as an obliged entity? 

It’s then worth preparing a brief risk analysis, an AML procedure, a checklist of documents and guidelines for communicating with clients. 

The best AML procedure is not the longest document. It is the one that the team can actually apply during a transaction. 

Summary 

The new AML/CFT package does not mean that every yacht broker will automatically become an obliged entity. 

Nor does it mean that the issue applies exclusively to yachts valued at over 7.5 million EUR. 

Ask yourself these three questions: 

1. Do you trade in yachts on a professional basis
2. Do you engage in, or plan to engage in, the trade of high-value goods?
3. Is this your usual or main business activity? 

After 10 July 2027, professionally handling yacht transactions in the high-end market segment will require not only knowledge of yachts and clients, but also the ability to answer questions such as who is buying, for whom, with what funds and for what purpose.

It is the middle of summer 2027. You are a broker/dealer and are just finalising the sale of a yacht worth 8,000,000 euros to a client from Dubai. The client is paying by bank transfer. As usual, you check the documents, but…

…this time, you must report the entire transaction to the General Inspector of Financial Information (GIIF), gather full UBO documentation, ascertain the sources of the client’s funds and assets, and carry out what is known as enhanced due diligence. You must do this before signing the contract. 

The bank will also report the transaction to the GIIF. 

And if you fail to do so, you could face a fine. 

From 10 July 2027, this is exactly how the sale of superyachts will work across the European Union. 

In recent years, the yachting industry has been subject to strict supervision. However, the obligations of buyers and brokers have focused on limiting cash transactions. 

That is now coming to an end. 

In 2027, the AMLR Regulation will come into force. It will introduce uniform, directly applicable rules for the entire market. Many of the changes will affect, amongst other things, high-value goods. But is that all? In our view, the changes may not be limited to them alone. 

What will change 

The new regulations will introduce two main changes: 

1. direct obligations for those trading in high-value goods (vehicles worth over 250, 000 EUR, yachts worth over 7, 500, 000 EUR),
2. indirect obligations for the entire yachting industry. 

The obliged entity will be a person trading in high-value goods as part of their usual or core professional activities. 

This means that the obliged entity will be a broker or dealer who offers (even occasionally) yachts worth over 7, 500, 000 EUR. 

Direct obligations: 

When selling high-value yachts for non-commercial purposes, a broker or dealer will be required to: 

• report the transaction to the GIIF,
• carry out full due diligence, including verifying the source of the buyer’s funds and assets. 

Indirect obligations: 

Although the regulations explicitly refer to vessels costing more than EUR 7,500,000, we cannot rule out the possibility that, after 10 July 2027, the entire yachting industry will be classified as a high-risk sector. 

The regulation contains the following information: 

Motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft in the higher market segments are exposed to the risk of being misused for money laundering and terrorist financing due to their high value and the fact that they are suitable for transport. 

This provision alone does not broaden the definition of vessels as “high-value goods”. However, given that banks have hitherto assessed each transaction for money laundering and terrorist financing risks, such a provision in the regulation could result in the entire industry being classified as high-risk in the upper sector, i.e. regardless of the value of the yacht. 

Three market segments – how the changes will affect you 

After 10 July 2027, the yacht market will be divided into three segments: 

1. superyachts,
2. mid-range yachts,
3. small yachts. 

Summary 

From 10 July 2027, the most significant changes will affect brokers/dealers of superyachts valued at over 7.5 million EUR. They will become obliged entities and will be subject to a number of new obligations. 

In addition, transactions involving yachts valued at over 7.5 million EUR will be subject to reporting (by both the broker/dealer and the bank). 

However, the entire industry may feel the effects of the banks’ stricter policies. Yacht transactions will be regarded as high-risk transactions. For your clients, this means having to prepare a much larger volume of documentation. As a broker or dealer, you will need to take this into account when structuring transactions and assessing when a contract might be finalised. 

This shouldn’t be a significant change for small and medium-sized brokers, but it’s certainly worth factoring it into your business model now. Especially if you’re targeting the sale of higher-value yachts. 

In the next articles in this series, we’ll break the topic down into its constituent parts and answer the following questions: 

• exactly who will be considered an obliged entity,
• what obligations will apply to obliged entities, and what obligations will apply to other brokers,
• what additional obligations will arise when selling a yacht exceeding the price limit,
• what due diligence and cooperation with banks will look like in practice,
• how to prepare your company for the new reality. 

If you don’t want to miss these articles, we invite you to subscribe to our newsletter.

You are already the owner of a yacht, and you wonder how to save yourself unnecessary formalities and time not only at the stage of registering your yacht but also during further operation? Registering the yacht under the Polish flag can be really helpful with that.

Is it true that registering yachts in Poland is so advantageous?

Absolutely.

Registering recreational yachts up to 15 meters in Poland is a process that offers many benefits and conveniences for shipowners. Importantly, the owner does not have to be of Polish nationality, so foreigners often choose Polish flag for their yachts.

The biggest advantage of registering the yacht in Poland is its validity for a lifetime, which eliminates the need for periodic renewal. This is the biggest difference, compared to other flags.

In other countries, there are the obligations to renew registration, which is inconvenient but also leads to additional costs. Such a situation can often be a serious obstacle to the long-term operation of the yacht by the owner, who for example, in retirement fulfills his dream of traveling around the world.

This true global phenomenon is not only facilitating the shipowners’ lives, but it also spreads the red and white colors worldwide. It is now difficult to find a marina in the Mediterranean where a Polish flag would not be flying on at least one of the yachts.

The main advantages of registering yachts in Poland:

• Valid for life: registration is valid for a lifetime, eliminating the need for annual renewal, providing stability and convenience for shipowners.
• No periodic fees: it does not require annual renewal, eliminating the additional costs associated with it.
• Fast registration process: the process is quick and efficient.
• No restrictions for recreational yachts: Poland does not impose additional restrictions on yachts up to 15 meters in length, for example, by not requiring annual safety inspections and technical surveys.
• Basic documentation: only basic documents are required, making the entire process more user-friendly and less complicated for shipowners.
• No additional costs: and no chargeable obligations, which reduces the final operational costs of the yacht.

More about the process.

The process of registering yachts in Poland is relatively quick and efficient, allowing shipowners to quickly enjoy legal status of their boats. Restrictions regarding recreational yachts are also relatively small, making registration attractive to both amateurs and professionals.

Basic documentation is required for registration, which every new buyer will receive from the previous owner or from the shipyard. In case of older yachts, many data concerning the yacht can only be declared, and no document at all is required for this purpose. The minimum amount of required documents, and the possibility of replacing original documents with scans, makes the whole process more user-friendly and less complicated for shipowners compared to competitive flags. This also reduces unnecessary documentation, which is important especially for people planning to purchase a yacht abroad or people from outside Poland.

So, are there any obligations?

For yachts up to 15 meters in length, there are no additional restrictions other than obtaining a radio permit for a period of 10 years. Radio permission is a separate procedure that can be completed after obtaining the registration document.

Larger yachts must undergo safety inspection and technical inspection according to an established schedule. This is done in appropriate cycles, depending on the age of the yacht.

This is practically the only difficulty, and it applies only to those larger yachts and all commercial ones. For recreational yachts up to 15 m, the most popular ones, such an obligation is not foreseen.

Of course, the financial aspect is also important here, because inspections and surveys are usually costly. And it is in other countries that they are also mandatory for recreational yachts up to 15 m. Therefore, it is not worth complicating your life and choosing the best solution for yourself – which is Polish flag – seems to be very reasonable.

Who can help you with the process?

Foreign shipowners are obliged to provide an address in Poland for correspondence purposes. This often involves the need to engage a proxy not only to receive correspondence related to yacht registration but also for assistance in completing the registration application, contacting the registering authority, etc. Therefore, choosing the right person to help you with these actions is necessary.

It is worth having a professional proxy who guarantees to provide you with all necessary information and the completion of all required formalities. Very often, you can come across offers whose authors are guided by nothing but the desire to profit from the “performance” of the yacht registration service. It is recommended to avoid such offers and choose a reliable and trustworthy proxy.

Summary

Registering yachts in Poland becomes more popular and attractive every year, especially for those seeking stability, convenience, and safety in their sailing adventure. We encourage all to get to know all the possibilities of yacht registration in Poland and to join the wide community of sea travel enthusiasts under the Polish flag.

Resently we examined the legal status of a floating dock in the Polish Martime Code and we assumed that – under some conditions – it can be considered a sea vessel.

One of it is that, the dock should be registered in the ship registry (maintained by the Maritime Chamber) but only upon the owner’s request.

But because such registration is not mandatory, it should be at least registered with the Maritime Office.

Only then we can say that the dock can be treated as a sea vessel.

Can the floating dock be used to secure debt repayment?

Let’s consider whether it’s possible to use a floating dock in any way to secure debt repayment. It may be really crucial especially during an ongoing judicial process, which can last for years in the current Polish context.

Any party or participant in a judicial proceeding can request security, but they must demonstrate:

• claim,
• legitimate interest in obtaining security.

A legitimate interest exists when the lack of security would make it impossible or significantly impede the enforcement of a judgment or the achievement of the proceeding’s goal in another way.

Interestingly, the Polish law does not require the actual proof of the claim and the legitimate interest. It is sufficient to make them probable.

Establishing a legitimate interest involves demonstrating through persuasive arguments that the lack of security would make it impossible or significantly impede the enforcement of the judgment or the achievement of the proceeding’s goal.

So, if you are a creditor, you must:

• describe the basis for claiming the debt (e.g., you entered into a contract for ship repairs, completed the work, issued an invoice, and the shipowner did not pay you); attach documents to the application confirming the described situation (e.g., a repair contract, protocols, invoices, payment requests).
• convince the court that the lack of security might hinder future enforcement proceedings; you must convince the court, for instance, that the debtor is divesting assets, not paying its employees, or is at risk of bankruptcy; such claims should be substantiated (e.g., through online publications).

Methods of securing monetary claims

Let’s assume that you persuaded the court that you need the security, the question that still remains is: what instrument should you use? It is on your side to indicate it in you initial motion.

You have these options:

• seizure of movable property, wages, claims from bank accounts, or other property rights,
• imposing a judical mortgage on real estate,
• Imposing a ban on the sale or encumbrance of real estate without a land registry or when the land registry has been lost or destroyed,
• imposing a maritime mortgage on a ship or ship under construction,
• imposing a ban on the sale of cooperative ownership rights to a flat,
• appointing a forced administrator over the debtor’s business or agricultural enterprise or a facility belonging to the business or its part.

As you can see there are various ways of securing your claim. Unfortunately, among these methods, there’s no direct mention of a floating dock or any related action.

Establishing a maritime mortgage on the dock

Can you secure your claim by imposing a maritime mortgage on the floating dock? Yes, but two conditions must be met:

1. assumption that the dock is considered a vessel according to maritime law, which may raise doubts,
2. dock must be registered in the ship registry maintained by the Maritime Chamber.

If the dock is not registered in the ship registry, this option will not be available.

In such a case, you would need to choose a different method to secure your debt repayment, such as i.e. seizing the debtor’s bank account or claims from third parties.

For a shipyard engaged in repairs, you may have the option of specifying the shipowner who is having their ship repaired and seizing the debt owed to the shipyard as compensation for the repair work.

Can the floating dock be secured at all?

As you can see, if the dock is not registered in the ship registry, it’s challenging. The only method of securing it judicially would be through a maritime mortgage.

However, this does not preclude extrajudicial security. A dock registered only with the Maritime Office could be encumbered with a pledge or a registered pledge.

But this requires cooperation between the creditor and the debtor and an agreement between them. Which is likely possible when there are no disputes or within the same corporate group.

 

Compiled by:

Karolina Grygorcewicz i Patryk Zbroja