Prosecution Of Illegal Ivory And Exotic Animal Trade
🦏 1. Introduction: The Crime and Its Legal Context
The illegal ivory and exotic animal trade is a major transnational organized crime that contributes to biodiversity loss, ecosystem destruction, and funding of criminal networks. It typically involves poaching, smuggling, illegal sale of wildlife parts (like ivory, tiger bones, pangolin scales), and trafficking of live endangered species.
Relevant International and Domestic Legal Frameworks
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973) – The primary global treaty regulating international wildlife trade.
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (India) – National statute to protect wildlife and control illegal trade.
Endangered Species Act, 1973 (USA) – Prohibits trade or possession of endangered species or their parts.
UK Ivory Act, 2018 (United Kingdom) – Bans commercial dealing in ivory regardless of age.
African Elephant Conservation Act (USA) – Specifically addresses ivory trafficking.
EU Wildlife Trade Regulations – Implements CITES rules across the European Union.
⚖️ 2. Important Case Laws
Below are five detailed cases illustrating prosecution and legal reasoning in ivory and exotic animal trade cases.
Case 1: United States v. Lacey & Larkin (Operation Crash, 2014–2017)
Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Facts:
Operation Crash was a large-scale federal investigation targeting the black market for rhino horns and ivory. The defendants were involved in buying, selling, and exporting rhino horns to China and Vietnam, often misdeclaring items as “art” or “antique”.
Legal Issue:
Violation of the Endangered Species Act (1973) and the Lacey Act (1900) for trafficking protected species and falsifying customs declarations.
Judgment:
The defendants were convicted for conspiracy, smuggling, and money laundering.
They received prison sentences ranging from 30 months to 5 years.
The court also ordered forfeiture of proceeds and confiscation of rhino horns and ivory products.
Significance:
Established that antique exemptions cannot be used as a loophole to launder illegal wildlife products.
Strengthened the use of the Lacey Act to prosecute international wildlife traffickers.
Case 2: Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC 604 (India)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Sansar Chand was a notorious wildlife smuggler responsible for poaching hundreds of tigers and leopards in Ranthambhore and Sariska sanctuaries. He dealt in animal skins, bones, and other parts.
Legal Issue:
Violation of Sections 9, 49, and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld his conviction and emphasized that wildlife crime affects the ecological balance of the nation.
The Court declared that protection of wildlife is part of the fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution.
Significance:
Landmark Indian judgment stressing that wildlife protection is a constitutional obligation.
Highlighted that economic or social gains cannot justify ecological destruction.
Case 3: R v. Bhujabal (2016) – UK Ivory Smuggling Case
Court: Southwark Crown Court, London
Facts:
The defendant, Bhujabal, was part of a syndicate smuggling raw ivory tusks from East Africa to the UK under false customs declarations (claiming they were “antique art”).
Legal Issue:
Violation of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 and fraud-related offenses.
Judgment:
The accused was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.
The court ordered the destruction of all confiscated ivory.
Significance:
Reinforced the strict liability under UK law for ivory dealing.
Demonstrated cooperation between British and African enforcement authorities under CITES.
Case 4: The Queen v. O’Connor (2018) – Australia
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Facts:
O’Connor was arrested for illegally importing live exotic reptiles and birds from Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Many of the animals were endangered species listed under CITES Appendix I and II.
Legal Issue:
Contravention of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Australia).
Judgment:
The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.
The court emphasized the cruelty involved, as many animals died during transport.
Significance:
The case highlighted the cruelty aspect of illegal wildlife trade.
Australia reaffirmed its zero-tolerance approach toward wildlife smuggling.
Case 5: Republic v. Feisal Mohamed Ali (2016) – Kenya
Court: Mombasa High Court, Kenya
Facts:
Feisal Mohamed Ali was accused of organizing the transport of 2,152 kilograms of elephant ivory worth over USD 4 million.
Legal Issue:
Charged under Kenya’s Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 for possession and trafficking of ivory.
Judgment:
Initially convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison and fined KES 20 million.
However, the High Court later quashed the conviction on appeal due to procedural irregularities, but the case led to reforms in wildlife prosecution standards.
Significance:
Sparked national outrage and reforms to strengthen evidentiary and procedural practices in wildlife crime cases.
Prompted Kenya to establish a special wildlife prosecution unit.
🧩 3. Key Legal Principles from the Cases
Strict Enforcement: Wildlife and ivory trafficking attract strict liability; intent is often inferred from possession or concealment.
International Cooperation: Cross-border coordination under CITES is essential for successful prosecution.
Forfeiture & Penalties: Confiscation of proceeds and wildlife products is mandatory in most jurisdictions.
Environmental Ethics: Courts recognize wildlife protection as an ethical and constitutional obligation.
Use of Technology: DNA forensics and customs data have become key in linking seizures to poaching sites.
🌍 4. Conclusion
The prosecution of illegal ivory and exotic animal trade represents a global legal effort combining criminal law, environmental law, and international cooperation.
Judicial trends across the U.S., India, Kenya, the U.K., and Australia reveal a consistent move toward:
Harsher penalties,
Stricter enforcement of CITES,
Recognition of wildlife crime as serious organized crime.
Ultimately, these prosecutions are not just about protecting animals—they aim to safeguard global biodiversity, ecological stability, and the moral responsibility of humankind.
RELATED Blog
comments