Singapore container line SeaLead Shipping has entered voluntary liquidation after the US Treasury sanctioned the carrier and three overseas subsidiaries on 14 July over alleged links to the shipping network of Iranian and Dominican national Mohammad Hossein ShAMKhani, according to the US Treasury.
SeaLead filed for voluntary liquidation in late July. Cosimo Borrelli was appointed liquidator on 3 August, after the directors declared the company solvent on 31 July with net assets of about $37.4m and said it could repay all debts within 12 months.
The filing figures showed $6.9m in cash, $19.9m of ships and $26.2m of containers. Current liabilities included about $15m owed to suppliers and $500,000 in salaries, while the company had no long-term debt.
The winding-up ends SeaLead’s main liner operations linking Asia with the Middle East, the Mediterranean and the Baltic. The 14 July action covered Sea Lead Shipping Pte Ltd, Dubai-based Sea Lead Shipping DMCC, Sea Lead Shipping Marshall Islands Ltd and India-based Sea Lead Shipping Agency India Private Limited under Executive Order 13902. Three ships in which SeaLead had an interest — the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged Paya Lebar and Panama-flagged Shenton Way and Tanjong Pagar 1 — were identified as blocked property.
A US general licence allows limited wind-down transactions until 12:01 a.m. EDT on 12 September, including safe port calls, crew safety, emergency repairs, bunkering, insurance and delivery and discharge of cargo loaded on or before 14 July, but not new commercial contracts outside the permitted wind-down.
In July 2025, 16 containerships chartered by SeaLead were caught in a broader US sanctions package. The carrier terminated the affected charterparties and said: “SeaLead … maintains no ties, direct or indirect, with any individuals or entities associated with the Iranian regime.”
In March 2026, US authorities filed civil forfeiture complaints covering more than $15.3m allegedly linked to the ShAMKhani network, including $2.4m intended for Sea Lead Shipping Pte Ltd and its Indian affiliate. The government bears the burden of proving the funds are forfeitable.
