Prosecution Of Crimes Involving Illegal Ivory Trade
1. Legal Framework for Ivory Trade Prosecution
Illegal ivory trade is primarily addressed through wildlife protection and anti-trafficking laws. These laws aim to protect endangered species (particularly elephants) and prevent their parts from entering commerce illegally. Globally, this is governed by:
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) – An international treaty banning or strictly regulating trade in endangered species, including elephant ivory.
National laws – Examples:
India: Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
USA: Endangered Species Act and African Elephant Conservation Act
UK: Control of Trade in Endangered Species (COTES) regulations
China: Recently strengthened bans on domestic ivory trade
Prosecution steps typically involve:
Investigation: Wildlife authorities, police, or customs detect possession, sale, or smuggling of ivory.
Seizure: Confiscation of ivory goods or raw tusks.
Charges: Under wildlife protection statutes, anti-trafficking, or customs law.
Trial: Evidence of possession, trade, or smuggling must be presented.
Sentencing: Punishments include fines, imprisonment, and confiscation of property.
2. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: Mohanlal vs. Union of India (India, 2016)
Facts: Mohanlal was caught transporting 12 elephant tusks across state borders without permission.
Charges: Violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Prosecution: Authorities traced the origin of the ivory and linked it to poaching activities in neighboring states.
Outcome: Mohanlal was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment with a fine. The court emphasized the strict liability for ivory possession, even if the accused claimed ignorance.
Key Point: Possession of ivory, even without direct involvement in poaching, is punishable.
Case 2: R vs. Mwita (Kenya, 2015)
Facts: Mwita was arrested with 20kg of ivory in Nairobi for intended export.
Charges: Violation of Kenya Wildlife Conservation and Management Act (2013).
Prosecution: The prosecution proved that Mwita had documents suggesting false origin and intended export to Asia.
Outcome: Mwita received a 10-year jail term and confiscation of property. The court noted that ivory smuggling is a major driver of elephant poaching.
Key Point: Courts in Africa treat ivory trafficking severely, with long custodial sentences.
Case 3: United States v. Kwame (USA, 2012)
Facts: Kwame imported 50 ivory carvings from Africa without proper CITES permits.
Charges: Violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and African Elephant Conservation Act.
Prosecution: The case involved customs officials seizing the ivory at the port of entry. Forensic analysis confirmed ivory origin.
Outcome: Kwame was fined $200,000 and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Legal Principle: Import without proper permits violates ESA, and intent to sell can escalate penalties.
Case 4: R v. Smith & Others (UK, 2018)
Facts: A group of traders in London was caught selling carved ivory ornaments online.
Charges: Violation of COTES regulations under the UK Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Prosecution: Investigators used undercover purchases and digital evidence to prove trading activity.
Outcome: All defendants were fined £50,000 collectively, and imprisoned from 2 to 4 years.
Legal Principle: Online sales of ivory are heavily scrutinized, and the burden of proving legal origin rests on the seller.
Case 5: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Arjun (India, 2014)
Facts: Arjun was caught with a shipment of raw ivory intended for carving workshops.
Charges: Violation of Wildlife (Protection) Act and illegal possession of scheduled animal products.
Prosecution: Authorities showed Arjun had previous convictions and that the ivory lacked proper documentation.
Outcome: 6 years imprisonment and seizure of all tools and ivory.
Significance: Repeat offenders face harsher sentences; intention for trade is key.
Case 6: R v. Zhang (China, 2019)
Facts: Zhang was operating a network supplying ivory tusks to local artisans.
Charges: Violation of China’s ban on domestic ivory trade.
Prosecution: Investigators conducted surveillance and traced the supply chain.
Outcome: Zhang received 5 years imprisonment and the state confiscated all ivory stock.
Key Point: China’s crackdown on domestic ivory markets is strict, with significant penalties.
Case 7: R v. Paul vs. Tanzania Wildlife Authority (Tanzania, 2016)
Facts: Paul was smuggling ivory from Tanzania to neighboring countries.
Charges: Violation of Tanzanian Wildlife Conservation laws.
Prosecution: Evidence included intercepted communication and physical ivory seized at checkpoints.
Outcome: 8 years imprisonment; heavy fines and property confiscation.
Legal Takeaway: Cross-border ivory smuggling attracts severe penalties, emphasizing deterrence.
3. Observations from Case Law
Strict Liability: Many jurisdictions impose liability regardless of claimed ignorance.
Heavy Penalties: Imprisonment often ranges from 3 to 10 years, plus fines.
Global Cooperation: Many cases involve cross-border investigation and CITES enforcement.
Evidence Critical: Forensic tests, documentation, and surveillance are essential.
Repeat Offenders: Courts tend to impose harsher sentences on those with prior convictions.
In summary, prosecution of illegal ivory trade combines wildlife law, criminal law, and international treaties. Courts worldwide have consistently demonstrated zero tolerance for ivory smuggling, emphasizing conservation and deterrence.
RELATED Blog
comments