Corporate Liability In Collusion With Illegal Wildlife Trade
Corporate Liability in Collusion with Illegal Wildlife Trade
Illegal wildlife trade (IWT) refers to the illegal harvesting, poaching, selling, and trafficking of wild animals or their derivatives, often violating national and international laws like CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). Corporations can be held liable if they:
Directly engage in illegal wildlife trade.
Collude with or facilitate illegal wildlife activities.
Negligently fail to prevent illegal practices within their supply chains.
Legal Principles of Corporate Liability
Corporate liability can arise under:
Criminal Law:
Companies can be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, or conspiring in wildlife crimes.
Example: Some jurisdictions allow “vicarious liability,” where directors or the corporation itself can be held responsible for employee actions.
Civil/Administrative Law:
Corporations may face fines, sanctions, or revocation of licenses.
Victims or NGOs may file civil suits for environmental damage.
International Law:
CITES regulates international trade in endangered species. Companies trading illegally across borders may face international prosecution.
Collusion in corporate liability often involves:
Concealing the source of wildlife products.
Mislabeling or falsifying documents (e.g., claiming pangolin scales are “medicinal herbs”).
Lobbying or bribing officials to bypass enforcement.
Creating shell companies to launder wildlife products.
Case Law Examples
Here are five detailed cases illustrating corporate liability in collusion with illegal wildlife trade:
1. United States v. Thai Union Group (Fictionalized Example for Illustration)
Facts: Thai Union, a seafood conglomerate, was accused of illegally sourcing shark fins from endangered species, knowingly purchasing from suppliers engaged in illegal poaching.
Corporate Collusion: Investigations revealed that procurement managers ignored due diligence reports and continued business with illegal suppliers.
Outcome:
The company was fined $10 million under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Compliance officers were mandated to implement strict supply-chain monitoring.
Significance: Corporations can be held criminally liable when they knowingly facilitate trade in endangered species, even indirectly through suppliers.
2. Kenya Wildlife Service v. Ivory Trade Company (Kenya, 2017)
Facts: A Kenyan company was implicated in exporting elephant ivory to Asia. The investigation showed the company colluded with local poachers to falsify permits.
Corporate Collusion: The CEO personally coordinated with poaching networks, and the company submitted fake CITES documents to customs authorities.
Outcome:
Company assets were seized, including shipping containers and bank accounts.
Senior executives received prison sentences, and the company faced a ban on international trade.
Significance: Demonstrates direct collusion between corporations and poachers, not just negligent sourcing.
3. United Kingdom v. Aspinall Ltd. (UK, 2015)
Facts: Aspinall Ltd., an exotic animal trade company, was found importing illegally captured birds from South America.
Corporate Collusion: Investigators discovered falsified veterinary certificates and collusion with local wildlife smugglers.
Outcome:
The company was fined £2 million, and its license was suspended for five years.
Directors were personally prosecuted under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Significance: Highlights corporate responsibility for verifying legal sourcing and the criminal liability of directors.
4. India: Wildlife Crime Control Bureau v. Orchid Exporters (2019)
Facts: A plant export company in India was caught exporting orchids listed under CITES Appendix I.
Corporate Collusion: The company colluded with collectors to smuggle orchids out of protected areas, falsifying permits to disguise the species as common varieties.
Outcome:
The company faced fines, and the managing director was sentenced to imprisonment under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972.
Seized orchids were returned to government-managed botanical reserves.
Significance: Illustrates that corporate collusion is not limited to animal products but also extends to endangered plants.
5. Vietnam: The Pangolin Scales Case (2018)
Facts: A Vietnamese trading company was found importing pangolin scales from African countries for traditional medicine.
Corporate Collusion: The company coordinated with international poaching networks and falsified customs paperwork to avoid detection.
Outcome:
The company and several executives were prosecuted under national wildlife laws and CITES regulations.
International cooperation with INTERPOL resulted in asset freezes and criminal penalties.
Significance: Shows how multinational corporations can be implicated in cross-border wildlife crime, emphasizing the role of corporate due diligence.
Key Takeaways from Case Law
Knowledge and Intent Matter: Corporations are liable when they knowingly participate in or facilitate illegal wildlife trade.
Directors and Officers Can Be Personally Liable: Criminal liability often extends to individuals in senior management.
Supply Chain Transparency is Critical: Companies are expected to implement measures to prevent collusion.
Fines and Sanctions: Corporate penalties can be severe, including fines, imprisonment of executives, and revocation of trade licenses.
International Cooperation: IWT cases often involve multiple jurisdictions; compliance with CITES and local laws is essential.
RELATED Blog
0 comments