The Republic versus Justine Ntinda - No. 25 of 2015
2015
On 16th April, 2015 the accused person was arraigned of unlawful possession of government trophy. Then brought before the court to answer a charge. The accused was convicted.
Found 15 search results
The Republic versus Awadhi Hussein Makimbo - No. 13 of 2002
2002
On 12.05.2001 at Mirerani village within Simanjiro District in Manyara Region the accused person was found in unlawful possession of government trophy to wit, antelope meat property of the government of Tanzania. The accused person was found not guilty and was therefore acquitted.
The Peoples Procuratorate of Yilihasake Autonomous Prefecture Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region v. Kudulaiti Aikebaierweiqi Duerdiyoufu
2011
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 defendants Min G., Zhiqiang X. and Linzheng G. charged felony counts of illegally purchasing, transporting or selling rare and endangered wild animals and their manufactured products (appellate case)
2020
From June 3 to June 5, 2018, Manai M. and Yinusi W went from Xiahe County, Gansu Province to Qinghai to purchase ivory products. At 19:00 on June 5, 2018, they drove a white Volkswagen Langxing car to Xining with the suspected ivory products they purchased.
The defendants Yinli X., Shipeng Y., Penglong L. and others charged felony counts of illegally purchasing, transporting and selling threatened and endangered wildlife and products (appellate case)
2020
From 2018 to the time of the incident, Yinli X., Shipeng Y., Penglong L. and Daqian Y. purchased and sold rhino horn products through WeChat. Starting from March 2019, four people began to buy shares of rhino horn products and stored them in a room in Shiguang Apartment, Linan Town, Xianyou County. Among them, Yinli X.
The defendants Yinli X., Shipeng Y., Penglong L. and others charged felony counts of illegally purchasing, transporting or selling rare and endangered wild animals and their manufactured products (appellate case)
2020
From 2018 to the time of the incident, Yinli X., Shipeng Y., Penglong L. and Daqian Y. purchased and sold rhino horn products through WeChat. Starting from March 2019, four people began to buy shares of rhino horn products and stored them in a room in Shiguang Apartment, Linan Town, Xianyou County. Among them, Yinli X.
The defendant Zhengquan Z. charged felony counts of illegally purchasing, transporting or selling rare and endangered wild animals and their manufactured products (appellate case)
2015
In March 2019, Zhaopan H. phoned Ganmaqilin to discuss the purchase of bear paw and bear gall and transferred RMB 50,000 to Ganmaqilin through bank transfer. On March 24, 2019, Ganmaqilin and Zhaopan H. completed the transaction of 31 bear paws, 1 bear gall, and 3 yak galls in Qujing City, Yunnan Province. Later, Zhaopan H.
The defendant Zimao L. charged felony counts of illegally purchasing, transporting or selling rare and endangered wild animals and their manufactured products (appellate case)
2019
Since 2017, without obtaining a business license, Zimao L. had repeatedly sold rhino horn products and ivory products to WeChat friends through WeChat.
The defendant Heng Z. charged felony counts of illegally purchasing, transporting and selling rare and endangered wild animals and their manufactured products (first instance case)
2019
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.
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mniki
2011
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.