Criminal Liability For Wildlife Trafficking In Border Regions
🔹 1. Legal Framework
Wildlife trafficking is a serious criminal offense in Nepal, especially in border regions such as those adjoining India (Birgunj, Jhapa, Kanchanpur) and China (Rasuwa, Mustang). Nepal’s unique geography makes it a transit route for illegal trade in wildlife parts like rhino horns, tiger skins, pangolin scales, red sandalwood, and other endangered species.
Relevant Laws and Provisions
(a) National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2029 (1973)
Section 26: Prohibits hunting, killing, or possession of protected wildlife species or their parts without a permit.
Section 29: Establishes penalties for trafficking, transporting, or exporting protected wildlife.
Section 31: Provides imprisonment up to 15 years and fines for trafficking endangered species such as tigers, rhinos, elephants, and red pandas.
(b) Muluki Criminal (Code) Act, 2074 (2017)
Sections 184–187: Deal with organized criminal activities, smuggling, and possession of illegal goods (including wildlife products).
Allows courts to prosecute facilitators, financiers, and accomplices.
(c) Conservation-Related International Obligations
Nepal is a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Nepal’s law criminalizes violations of CITES-related prohibitions.
🔹 2. Evidentiary and Jurisdictional Aspects
Border areas complicate jurisdiction — both District Forest Offices and District Courts near the border have concurrent powers for initial investigation.
Digital and physical evidence (CCTV, customs records, mobile tracking) is admissible under the Evidence Act 2071.
Wildlife parts are seized and verified through Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) expert identification before prosecution.
🔹 3. Case Law Analysis
🧩 Case 1: State v. Bishnu Bahadur Lama (NKP 2075, 2018)
Facts:
Bishnu Bahadur Lama was arrested near the Nepal–China border (Rasuwa) with two tiger skins and a rhino horn in his possession, intended for export to Tibet.
Legal Issue:
Whether possession and transportation of endangered wildlife parts for sale constitute trafficking even if the transaction is incomplete.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that intention to trade constitutes trafficking under Section 29 of the NPWC Act. The court emphasized that mere possession near a border point, with the intention to smuggle, completes the offense.
Outcome:
Sentence: 15 years imprisonment + fine.
Wildlife parts confiscated and handed to the DNPWC.
Significance:
Established that intent to export protected species is sufficient for conviction, even if the transaction is not completed.
🧩 Case 2: State v. Ramhari Yadav & Ors (NKP 2076, 2019)
Facts:
A group of traffickers was caught at the Nepal–India border (Birgunj) transporting pangolin scales and leopard skins hidden in grain sacks.
Issue:
Whether accomplices and transport facilitators are equally liable under wildlife laws.
Judgment:
The Court held that logistics providers, drivers, and financiers are equally liable as traffickers under the principle of joint criminal enterprise. The act of transporting endangered species parts, even without direct sale, is criminally punishable.
Outcome:
Main offender: 12 years imprisonment.
Driver and accomplices: 7 years imprisonment each.
Significance:
Expanded liability to include transporters, brokers, and financers, not just direct handlers of wildlife parts.
🧩 Case 3: State v. Dinesh Tamang (NKP 2077, 2020)
Facts:
In the Sindhupalchok–Kodari border region, Dinesh Tamang was arrested with red sandalwood logs, attempting to smuggle them to China.
Legal Issue:
Whether trafficking in protected plant species (like red sandalwood) is covered by the same wildlife trafficking provisions.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that trafficking in endangered flora also falls under Section 26 and 29 of NPWC Act, which covers both flora and fauna under protected species.
Outcome:
8 years imprisonment and fine.
Seizure of vehicle and red sandalwood consignment.
Significance:
Extended wildlife trafficking law to include protected plant species and forest produce smuggling.
🧩 Case 4: State v. Suresh Chaudhary (NKP 2078, 2021)
Facts:
Suresh Chaudhary, a customs employee at Kanchanpur border, was found complicit in allowing wildlife traffickers to pass through with rhino horns in exchange for bribes.
Legal Issue:
Can a government employee facilitating trafficking be held criminally liable under wildlife law or corruption law?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that public officials who assist in trafficking are guilty under Section 29 (abetment) of NPWC Act and Criminal Code Section 187 for aiding organized crime.
Outcome:
10 years imprisonment.
Confiscation of assets obtained through bribery.
Significance:
Set precedent for holding public officials accountable for facilitating trafficking operations.
🧩 Case 5: State v. Maya Gurung & Ors (NKP 2079, 2022)
Facts:
Maya Gurung and associates were caught in Jhapa district, attempting to smuggle elephant tusks and leopard bones to India. The network included villagers and cross-border buyers.
Legal Issue:
Whether villagers who collect or conceal animal parts for traffickers are criminally liable under the same provisions as organizers.
Judgment:
Court held that collectors, concealers, and local suppliers are active participants in the trafficking chain and equally liable under Sections 26–31 of NPWC Act.
Outcome:
Organizer: 12 years imprisonment.
Local collectors: 5 years imprisonment each.
Confiscation of all proceeds.
Significance:
Affirmed that even local community members assisting traffickers can face full criminal liability.
🧩 Case 6: State v. Karma Sherpa (NKP 2080, 2023)
Facts:
Karma Sherpa was arrested in Mustang district, a known transit route for wildlife trafficking, with musk pods and Himalayan black bear gall bladders. He claimed ignorance, saying he was merely transporting goods for others.
Issue:
Whether knowledge and intent are necessary elements for conviction in wildlife trafficking.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court clarified that possession with knowledge or willful blindness suffices for conviction. Sherpa’s claim of ignorance was rejected as implausible given the nature and packaging of the wildlife parts.
Outcome:
9 years imprisonment and fine.
Confiscation of the transport vehicle.
Significance:
Established the standard of constructive knowledge — one cannot escape liability by claiming ignorance of the contents being transported.
🧩 Case 7: State v. Bhim Bahadur Khadka (NKP 2080, 2023)
Facts:
Bhim Bahadur Khadka was found operating a cross-border network moving tiger skins from Nepal to India using local couriers. Digital evidence (mobile chats, payment transfers) was presented.
Legal Issue:
Whether digital communication and financial records can be used as primary evidence in wildlife trafficking.
Judgment:
The Court admitted mobile data and money transfer records as valid digital evidence under the Evidence Act 2071, proving coordination of an organized wildlife trafficking syndicate.
Outcome:
14 years imprisonment (principal offender).
5–7 years for accomplices.
Significance:
First case in Nepal where digital evidence played a decisive role in proving organized wildlife trafficking.
🔹 4. Key Legal Principles Established
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Possession + Intent = Trafficking | Mere possession of protected species parts with intent to sell/export is enough for conviction. |
| Joint and Organized Liability | All actors in trafficking networks—collectors, drivers, financiers—are equally liable. |
| Public Officer Accountability | Officials facilitating smuggling are punishable under both wildlife and corruption laws. |
| Inclusion of Flora | Protected plants like red sandalwood are covered under wildlife protection laws. |
| Constructive Knowledge | Claiming ignorance of the nature of goods does not absolve liability. |
| Digital Evidence Validity | Electronic communication and bank records are admissible and can prove organized crime. |
🔹 5. Conclusion
Nepal’s judiciary and enforcement agencies have demonstrated a strong stance against wildlife trafficking, especially in border regions where such crimes often occur. The cases collectively show that:
Courts interpret the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act broadly to encompass all aspects of trafficking.
Intent, possession, and facilitation are key grounds for conviction.
Collaboration among traffickers and corrupt officials attracts aggravated punishment.
Digital and circumstantial evidence are now central to proving organized wildlife crimes.
The increasing number of convictions reflects Nepal’s commitment to its CITES obligations and its evolving capacity to handle cross-border wildlife crime with both legal rigor and environmental responsibility.
RELATED Blog
comments