Wildlife Crime And Pangolin Trafficking Prosecutions
Key Cases & Prosecutions: Wildlife Crime & Pangolin Trafficking in China
Case 1: Massive Smuggling – 10.65 Tons of Pangolin Scales (温州案)
Facts: In 2019, Chinese customs, together with public security, intercepted a shipment of over 10.65 tons of pangolin scales, packed in 306 large bags. The scales were identified as from tree pangolins, a species under the strictest protection (CITES Appendix I).
Legal Proceedings:
The procuratorate (public prosecutor) got involved early (提前介入), tracing the smuggling chain and mapping out the network of suspects.
Forensic wildlife experts were asked to do species‑identification, confirming the pangolin species in the seized material (both morphological and molecular testing).
Charges: The suspects were prosecuted for smuggling precious wild animal products, as scales are clearly protected wildlife products under Chinese law.
Outcome: The case went to court, and substantial penalties (prison, fines) were imposed. The scale of the seizure made it a “particularly serious” crime.
Significance: This is one of the largest pangolin‑scale traffickings in China, showcasing robust cross‑agency enforcement (customs + public security + procuratorate + forensics). It also underlines the application of China’s wildlife‑protection criminal law to large-scale international smuggling.
Case 2: Illegal Purchase & Sale of Pangolins by Restaurant / Trade Syndicate (宜兴案)
Facts: Over several months, a network of 21 people illegally purchased and sold live pangolins, frozen pangolins, and pangolin scales. These included “wildlife traders” and restaurant owners who sold pangolin meat and scales to customers.
Evidence: Authorities seized 7 live pangolins, 39 frozen pangolins, and large quantities of pangolin scales from their operations during raids.
Legal Basis: The prosecuting office (检察机关) charged them for illegally buying, transporting, and selling endangered species or wildlife products, under Chinese criminal law for wildlife protection.
Outcome: The defendants were prosecuted, and criminal sentences were coupled with a civil‑公益诉讼 (public-interest civil lawsuit) brought by the procuratorate — meaning they had to pay ecological compensation to the state because of the wild-animal-resource damage.
Significance: This case is a 公益诉讼典型案例, illustrating that Chinese prosecutors not only criminally punish individuals, but also seek ecological compensation for the damage caused by wildlife trafficking. It also underscores the trafficking route from “wildlife → restaurant consumption → trade.”
Case 3: High-Value Pangolin Scale Dealer (广东 / 深圳鳞片案)
Facts: In Guangdong (Shenzhen), a trafficker (or syndicate) was caught dealing hundreds of kilograms of pangolin scales. According to the case record, the total scales exceeded 105 kg (plus they also acquired 382 kg in another transaction). The value of these scales was extremely high.
Legal Proceedings: The court applied newer sentencing rules: China’s judicial authorities have revised how to value wild-animal products (not just by weight, but by market value), which affects how sentencing is done.
Charges: The defendants were charged with crime of endangering precious, endangered wild animals, specifically for dealing in pangolin scales.
Outcome: The court sentenced the traffickers to prison terms (terms ranged, depending on involvement) and imposed fines. Because of the high value of the scales, the more serious sentencing categories applied.
Significance: This case is important because it shows the application of modern legal valuation methods for wild‑animal product crimes, meaning courts will look not just at number of animals but the economic worth of the scales in sentencing.
Case 4: Forensic Identification of Smuggled Scales (司法鉴定案)
Facts: Customs and law‑enforcement seized a huge batch of pangolin scales (10,940.9 kg gross, around 10,645.3 kg net) in a smuggling operation. The identity and species of the pangolin scales were initially unclear.
Forensic Process:
The case was referred for judicial wildlife damage appraisal (司法鉴定) to determine precisely what species the scales came from.
Experts used both morphological (shape, appearance) and molecular (DNA) methods to identify the species: they confirmed that the scales belonged to tree pangolins.
Legal Implication: Correct species identification was essential to apply the right legal regime: because tree pangolins are strictly protected, their smuggling constitutes particularly serious crime.
Outcome: Based on the forensic report, the case was prosecuted under smuggling of precious animal products. The value determination helped set sentencing.
Significance: This illustrates how species-level forensic identification is a critical part of wildlife crime prosecution in China — proper species identification can change the severity of charges and punishments dramatically.
Case 5: Judicial Interpretation & Sentencing Reform (Guiding Opinions)
Facts / Context: The Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate issued Interpretations (司法解释) to guide local courts in punishing illegal wildlife-trafficking crimes. These interpretations make clear how to value wildlife and wildlife products, how to distinguish between live animals and products, and how to handle smuggling vs domestic trade.
Key Legal Changes:
The value-based sentencing standard for wildlife products (such as pangolin scales) is emphasized: courts should value the scales at their market value, not just by weight.
For pangolins, the guiding valuation is set very high — for example, a single wild pangolin is given a very large “valuation baseline” in certain determinations, which affects sentencing.
The interpretation also clarifies that smuggling pangolins (or their scales) can lead to severe penalties (potentially 10 years or more) depending on value and quantity.
Legal Significance: These interpretations serve as a kind of quasi-case-law: they standardize how wildlife crimes are treated across China, especially for endangered species like pangolins, ensuring more uniform and harsher punishments.
Case 6: Public-Interest Prosecution by Procuratorate (呼伦贝尔公益诉讼)
Facts: In Inner Mongolia (呼伦贝尔), the local People’s Procuratorate brought a public-interest (公益) criminal‑civil prosecution against individuals who illegally bought and sold pangolins. The buy-sell network involved multiple individuals dealing in pangolin bodies and scales.
Legal Action: The prosecutors not only sought criminal conviction, but also civil compensation for ecological damage. They used expert wildlife appraisal to estimate the ecological harm.
Outcome: The court convicted the traffickers, and part of the judgment included ecological compensation — money to be paid into state funds to reflect the environmental harm caused by the trafficking.
Significance: This kind of case shows how Chinese prosecutors are using combined criminal + ecological compensation strategies to address wildlife crime: not just punishing traffickers, but also recovering environmental value.
Key Legal & Policy Themes from These Cases
Value-Based Sentencing
Modern Chinese wildlife crime prosecution increasingly uses market‑value (not just quantity) to sentence for wildlife products like pangolin scales.
This helps ensure that high‑value trafficking is punished more harshly.
Forensic Science Is Central
Judicial wildlife damage appraisal (species identification) is key to establishing species, weight, and value.
Accurate species ID affects what statutes apply and how severe the charge is.
Smuggling vs Domestic Trade
Smuggling pangolin scales (cross‑border) tends to be punished more severely than small-scale domestic trade.
The “smuggling vs internal trade” distinction is important in prosecutions.
Public-Interest Litigation
Prosecutors take a leading role: beyond criminal prosecution, they bring public-interest civil claims to demand ecological compensation.
This dual-track approach increases the cost to traffickers.
Legal Reform & Interpretation
Supreme judicial bodies have issued guiding interpretations clarifying how to apply and value wildlife crimes.
This helps make enforcement more consistent and punitive across regions.
Conclusion:
China is prosecuting wildlife crime involving pangolins vigorously, using a mix of criminal charges, forensic appraisal, and public-interest litigation.
The shift toward value-based sentencing and species-level identification is significant — pangolin trafficking is no longer treated lightly.
These cases reflect both legal evolution and stronger enforcement, showing that China’s wildlife crime regime is becoming more mature — especially for highly endangered species like pangolins.
RELATED Blog
comments