Malaysia’s renewed discussions with Ocean Infinity to mount a private seabed search for MH370 hinge on a familiar commercial construct: a no-find, no-fee proposal that purports to shift exploration risk away from the state and onto the contractor. That proposal has bipartisan political appeal and obvious emotional force for families who have waited a decade for answers, yet it raises distinct legal and governance questions that deserve scrutiny before any contract is signed.

From a regulatory standpoint the no-fee framing is rhetorically simple but legally complex. It is not enough to say the government pays only if the wreck is found. Contracts of this type must define, with precision, what constitutes a discoverable “wreck” for payment purposes, who will independently verify that discovery, how evidence will be documented and preserved, and what chain of custody will govern transfer of wreckage for forensic examination. Past private and government-led underwater searches for MH370 demonstrate how ambiguous technical outcomes and competing expert interpretations can quickly become disputes of fact and of law.

Operational claims about improved sensors, artificial intelligence and refined modelling are central to Ocean Infinity’s pitch. Those claims are plausible and worth testing. But they must not replace contract safeguards. A performance-triggered fee model can create perverse incentives. For example, a contractor rewarded on a single “find” could be tempted to over-state the significance of partial debris, rely on equivocal acoustic anomalies, or seek confirmation in jurisdictions with lower evidentiary thresholds. A robust agreement prevents these outcomes by building in independent verification panels, agreed forensic standards, and staged payment mechanisms tied to incontrovertible milestones rather than a single, binary event.

Key contract design elements the Malaysian government should require include:

  • A clear definition of the payment trigger. Specify the physical evidence, its condition, and the documentary record required to trigger any fee. Include admissibility standards for acoustic, geophysical and visual data and require independent third party verification.
  • An independent verification body. Appoint an expert panel with agreed terms of reference and authority to certify discovery outcomes. The panel should include international accident investigators, forensic specialists, and recognized oceanographers.
  • Data transparency and custody. Oblige the contractor to preserve raw sensor output, provide immediate copies to the government and to accredited independent labs, and preserve wreckage with a secure chain of custody for safety and criminal inquiry purposes.
  • Dispute resolution and interim payments. Include mechanisms for technical disagreement resolution, and consider staged compensation for demonstrably credible intermediate results that advance recovery and identification without constituting a final payment event.
  • Environmental and salvage law compliance. Ensure the contract aligns with international law of the sea, salvage and removal rules, and protections for human remains and property. Require environmental impact assessments and mitigation obligations.
  • Family consultation and privacy safeguards. Build a consultative process with next-of-kin, protect sensitive personal data, and set expectations about timelines and possible outcomes.

Beyond contract mechanics, there is a governance decision facing Malaysia and partner states. Accepting a private operator’s proposal because it appears costless on its face can reduce political friction but increase procedural risk. No-find, no-fee deals do not eliminate the need for government oversight, forensic capacity and intergovernmental cooperation. They shift the site-level risk but cannot substitute for the investigative infrastructure necessary to establish cause, allocate liability and bring closure.

Finally, policymakers should require that any technological claims be subject to pre-deployment validation and independent audit. New sensor suites and machine learning models can improve probability estimates and survey efficiency, but they can also introduce new failure modes. Contractors should be required to disclose methodologies, validation datasets and error rates. That disclosure protects the integrity of the search and limits the risk that an apparent discovery is later contradicted by better evidence.

The emotional urgency driving renewed interest in MH370 is real and compelling. Offering families a path toward possible closure is a legitimate public purpose. But legally and operationally, the no-find, no-fee model must be converted from a headline slogan into a tightly specified set of obligations, independent checks and transparent processes. If done correctly, a private operator with advanced robotics can be a useful tool in a measured, overseen search. If done poorly, the arrangement risks producing contested findings, wasted public and private effort, and little additional clarity for the people who most need it.