Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 10 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On June 18, 2013, Seafarer began litigation against Tulco Resources, LLC, in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit was filed for against Tulco based upon for breach of contract, equitable relief and injunctive relief. Tulco was the party holding the rights under a permit to a treasure site at Juno Beach, Florida. Tulco and Seafarer had entered into contracts in March 2008, and later renewed under an amended agreement on June 11, 2010. Such permit was committed to by Tulco to be an obligation and contractual duty to which they would be responsible for payment of all costs in order for the permit to be reissued. Such obligation is contained in the agreement of March 2008 which was renewed in the June 2010 agreement between Seafarer and Tulco. Tulco made the commitment to be responsible for payments of all necessary costs for the gaining of the new permit. Tulco never performed on such obligation, and Seafarer during the period of approximately March 2008 and April 2012 had endeavored and even had to commence a lawsuit to gain such permit which was awarded in April 2012. Seafarer alleged in its complaint the expenditure of large amounts of shares and monies for financing and for delays due to Tulco’s non-performance. Seafarer sought monetary damages and injunctive relief for the award of all rights held by Tulco to Seafarer. Seafarer gained a default and final Judgment on such matter on July 23, 2014. Seafarer is now in position to receive the renewed permit in Seafarer’s name and rights only, with Tulco removed per the Order of the Court. On March 4, 2015, the Court awarded full rights to the Juno sight to Seafarer Exploration, erasing all rights of Tulco Resources. The Company filed an Admiralty Claim over such site in the United States District Court. On October 21, 2016 a hearing on the Admiralty Claim in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida was held, where the Court Ordered actions to take place for ongoing admiralty claim. The Court subsequently entered and Order directing the arrest warrant for such site, and such arrest warrant was issued by the Clerk of Court. Such arrest warrant was served by the United States Marshalls Office in Palm Beach, Florida on July 7, 2017. The United States District Court Judge ordered service on the claim on August 10, 2017. On November 14, 2017, Judge Kenneth Marra of the United States District Court awarded Seafarer all rights as the sole owner of the sunken vessel and any items on such site. On September 3, 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit against Darrel Volentine, of California. Mr. Volentine was sued in two counts of libel per se under Florida law, as well as a count for injunction against the Defendant to exclude and prohibit internet postings. Such lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit is based upon internet postings on www.investorshub.com . On or about October 15, 2015, the Company and Volentine entered into a stipulation whereby Volentine admitted to his tortious conduct, however the stipulated damages agreed to were rejected by the Court. The Defendant is the subject of a contempt of court motion which was heard on April 7, 2016, whereby the Court found a violation and modified the injunction against the Defendant, and imposed other matters of potential penalties against the Defendant. The Court also awarded attorney’s fees against the Defendant on behalf of Seafarer for such motion. The Defendant subsequently attempted to have such ruling, evidence and testimony attacked through a motion heard before the Court on October 24, 2016. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s motion after presentation of the Defendant’s case at the hearing. The Plaintiff had set the matter for entry of the attorney’s fees amount due from the Defendant for hearing in December 2016. As well the Plaintiff has set for hearing its motion for sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees for frivolous filing of the October 24th motion, which motion was also set for hearing in December 2016. The Plaintiff filed a renewed and amended motion for punitive damages in the case on September 11, 2016, which has not been set for hearing. The Defendant had also filed a motion for summary judgment on the matter of notice entitlement pre-suit, which motion is pending before the Court. The Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against the Defendant for the motion for summary judgment being frivolous under existing law, and such motion is pending ruling on the motion. Discovery is ongoing on such case. On December 7, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the Defendant’s motion for sanctions, and essentially attempting to rehear the motion for contempt against the Defendant. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s motions, and renewed the ability of the Company to seek attorney’s fees on such matter, which hearing has not been set at present. On February 28, 2017, the Court entered an Order denying the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Company has a pending motion for sanctions related to the Defendant’s filing of the motion for summary judgment which has not been set for hearing. The Company will be attempting to set such matter for trial during 2019.

Legal Proceedings

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 10 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On June 18, 2013, Seafarer began litigation against Tulco Resources, LLC, in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit was filed for against Tulco based upon for breach of contract, equitable relief and injunctive relief. Tulco was the party holding the rights under a permit to a treasure site at Juno Beach, Florida. Tulco and Seafarer had entered into contracts in March 2008, and later renewed under an amended agreement on June 11, 2010. Such permit was committed to by Tulco to be an obligation and contractual duty to which they would be responsible for payment of all costs in order for the permit to be reissued. Such obligation is contained in the agreement of March 2008 which was renewed in the June 2010 agreement between Seafarer and Tulco. Tulco made the commitment to be responsible for payments of all necessary costs for the gaining of the new permit. Tulco never performed on such obligation, and Seafarer during the period of approximately March 2008 and April 2012 had endeavored and even had to commence a lawsuit to gain such permit which was awarded in April 2012. Seafarer alleged in its complaint the expenditure of large amounts of shares and monies for financing and for delays due to Tulco’s non-performance. Seafarer sought monetary damages and injunctive relief for the award of all rights held by Tulco to Seafarer. Seafarer gained a default and final Judgment on such matter on July 23, 2014. Seafarer is now in position to receive the renewed permit in Seafarer’s name and rights only, with Tulco removed per the Order of the Court. On March 4, 2015, the Court awarded full rights to the Juno sight to Seafarer Exploration, erasing all rights of Tulco Resources. The Company filed an Admiralty Claim over such site in the United States District Court. On October 21, 2016 a hearing on the Admiralty Claim in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida was held, where the Court Ordered actions to take place for ongoing admiralty claim. The Court subsequently entered and Order directing the arrest warrant for such site, and such arrest warrant was issued by the Clerk of Court. Such arrest warrant was served by the United States Marshalls Office in Palm Beach, Florida on July 7, 2017. The United States District Court Judge ordered service on the claim on August 10, 2017. On November 14, 2017, Judge Kenneth Marra of the United States District Court awarded Seafarer all rights as the sole owner of the sunken vessel and any items on such site.

On September 3, 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit against Darrel Volentine, of California. Mr. Volentine was sued in two counts of libel per se under Florida law, as well as a count for injunction against the Defendant to exclude and prohibit internet postings. Such lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit is based upon internet postings on www.investorshub.com . On or about October 15, 2015, the Company and Volentine entered into a stipulation whereby Volentine admitted to his tortious conduct, however the stipulated damages agreed to were rejected by the Court. The Defendant is the subject of a contempt of court motion which was heard on April 7, 2016, whereby the Court found a violation and modified the injunction against the Defendant, and imposed other matters of potential penalties against the Defendant. The Court also awarded attorney’s fees against the Defendant on behalf of Seafarer for such motion. The Defendant subsequently attempted to have such ruling, evidence and testimony attacked through a motion heard before the Court on October 24, 2016. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s motion after presentation of the Defendant’s case at the hearing. The Plaintiff had set the matter for entry of the attorney’s fees amount due from the Defendant for hearing in December 2016. As well the Plaintiff has set for hearing its motion for sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees for frivolous filing of the October 24th motion, which motion was also set for hearing in December 2016. The Plaintiff filed a renewed and amended motion for punitive damages in the case on September 11, 2016, which has not been set for hearing. The Defendant had also filed a motion for summary judgment on the matter of notice entitlement pre-suit, which motion is pending before the Court. The Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against the Defendant for the motion for summary judgment being frivolous under existing law, and such motion is pending ruling on the motion. Discovery is ongoing on such case. On December 7, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the Defendant’s motion for sanctions, and essentially attempting to rehear the motion for contempt against the Defendant. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s motions, and renewed the ability of the Company to seek attorney’s fees on such matter, which hearing has not been set at present. On February 28, 2017, the Court entered an Order denying the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Company has a pending motion for sanctions related to the Defendant’s filing of the motion for summary judgment which has not been set for hearing. The Company will be attempting to set such matter for trial during 2019.