WILDLEX

It was alleged that the accused person on 10 March 2015 Chanumba Village within Chamwino District was found in possession of wildebeest tail and lizard skin. The accused was found guilty.

It was alleged that the accused persons on 15/2/2009 at Leken area, Selela village, Monduli District in Arusha region were found in unlawful possession of fresh wildebeest meat. The accused denied the charges. The accused persons were found guilty and were therefore convicted.

In mid-November 2006, the defendant Wang Jiangdu cooperated with Wang Tianjian and transported a batch of “seafood” to China via Xiamen-Jinmen Sea Area for a Taiwanese businessman.

A citizen filled a suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a county in the state of Florida. Invoking a vicarious-liability theory, the plaintiffs alleged that the county’s “refusal ... to ban beachfront artificial light sources that adversely impact sea turtles” violated the ESA’s “take” prohibition.

In the end of May 2014, appellants Liao Moumou, Chen Moumou and fellow Huang Huang Were employed by Zeng Mou and others, conspiring to drive ships to Hong Kong to transport waste electrical appliances and other goods into the country .

One 13th, July 2015 the defendant Yin X was found by the policeman illegally selling precious and endangered wildlife products in her shop without approval from the wildlife authority.

On the material date, at 22.00 hrs at Tingirima village within Bunda District in Mara Region, the accused was found in the possession of skins of dik-dik, two pieces of dried meat of the wildebeest and a piece of elephant tusk, after an emergence search in his house, a house owned by his mother and elder brother while he was sleeping.

Since 1987, United States regulations have required that shrimp trawlers generally install turtle excluder devices (TEDs) when operating in U.S. waters where sea turtles are located (Section 609 of Public Law 101-162). A group of countries brought a complaint to the Dispute Settle Mechanism of the WTO.

The appellants in the court below were found to be in possession of game animal, alternatively government trophy, namely wildebeest skin, without being licenced or authorised to possess same.