Database of Wildlife Related Law
The appellants had imported mammoth fossil said to be of an extinct species in the year 1937.The stock of mammoth fossil held by the appellants is said to be periodically checked by the statutory authorities.
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 court considered an appeal against the sentence imposed.
The two Accused had been convicted of unlawfully hunting game. The value of weapons and vehicle used in the commission of the offence exceeded the civil jurisdiction of a Subordinate Court, which accordingly referred the question of forfeiture of these articles to the High Court.
