WILDLEX

The accused was arraigned before Mpanda District Court for unlawful possession of government trophy. The accused was found guilty.

On April 2, 2001, based on the criminal facts and circumstances of the defendant and the degree of harm to the society, The Intermediate People’s Court of Yilihasake Autonomous Prefecture, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region rendered the following judgment: Defendant: Kudulaiti Aikebaierweiqi Duerdiyoufu Verdict: Guilty Charge/Claim: Smugglin

The defendant Xinfeng Y. purchased wild animal products suspected of being ivory and rhino horn three times at Panjiayuan Market Market in Beijing and Dongyang Wood Carving City in Zhejiang Province from 2013 to 2014.

In March 2017, the defendant Mibo L. purchased two chameleons from the defendant Xin Q. at a price of RMB 200 each. In April 2017, Mibo L. purchased a python from Xin Q. for RMB 500. On June 13, 2017, the defendant Luo Mibo posted a photo through the WeChat Moments, and then sold a leopard claw nail pendant to the defendant Cai S.

From 2009 to July 2015, without obtaining the license issued by the wildlife management department, Zhaofeng C., together with Baocai Y. and Wang, illegally purchased rare and endangered wild animals and their products, such as pangolins, monitor lizards and bear paws, from Jianping L., Chunhua L. and others.

On January 13, 2019, Wei H. and others drove a car to Baoding to purchase three vultures at a price of 5,300 yuan. The next day, Wei H. sold the three vultures to Feng P. for 2,000 yuan each, and delivered them to Wulongshan Zoo according to Pan Feng’s requirements. On March 12, 2019, Wei H.

In February 2018, Heng Z. purchased a snow leopard skin from Han through WeChat and sold it to Yu. Then he asked Han to deliver the snow leopard skin to Xu by courier at the address provided by Yu. After the appraisal, the snow leopard skin involved was worth 400,000 yuan.

This is an appeal case were the accused was aqutted and the convictions on the three counts of Unlawful Possession of Prescribed Trophy without a certificate of ownership were set aside for lack of proper evidence provided to the court.

The appellants applied twice for permits to import and keep lions but the applications were rejected by the respondent. The appellants them applied to the High Court for the review of the respondent’s decision and for ancillary relief. The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought an order declaring the respondent’s motor vehicle forfeit to the state following his arrest for illegal poaching. The court dismissed the application on the basis that being motion proceedings, the matter had, there being no request for a referral for oral evidence, to be decided on the respondent’s version.