WILDLIFE CRIME

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Of great concern is the lack of deterrent
sentencing meted out by the courts to those
found to have smuggled threatened species
into Hong Kong in contravention of Cap
586. Cases are tried in the Magistracy as
the maximum penalty under the Ordinance
is within the courts’ jurisdictional limit (2
years imprisonment). Imprisonment for
trade in, as opposed to theft of, critically
endangered species is rare. Even when gaol
terms are imposed, sentences are short. In
addition, cases that should be considered
as commercial crimes are not receiving
the appropriate level of attention from the
courts. A comparison with Australian and UK
legislation shows that Hong Kong has vastly
more lenient maximum sentences compared
to those two jurisdictions. The leniency of
the Hong Kong regime is also apparent in
comparison with the CITES penalties imposed
by EU member states.
The most efficient and successful prosecutions
of those responsible globally have been
conducted using not wildlife legislation
but criminal statutes that seek to penalize
offences such as conspiracy and racketeering.
This approach also makes clear to the judiciary
that the people being brought before them
have engaged in serious acts of criminality,
which rank alongside those which impact very
adversely on society as a whole and which
threaten Nature itself.
Further, government departments in Hong
Kong, such as the Hong Kong Police, AFCD,
Department of Justice and CED need to
work closely together to share information,
resources, duties and expertise both
locally and globally in order to tackle often
complex wildlife crime. Without close and
consistent cooperation between the relevant
departments and the employment of expert
investigative personnel, it will be difficult to
convict the masterminds of the trade.
However, cross-departmental collaborations
and strategic planning to address wildlife crime
in Hong Kong remains unclear and apparently
deficient, despite the Government having
various advisory and liaison groups in place.
While task forces exist within CED to deal with
specific illegal trades, both CED and AFCD have
faced criticism by the Audit Commission in
relation to inadequate performance indicators
and long-term strategy. Insufficient allocation
of resources to both AFCD and CED is also
considered a constraint in policing the illegal
wildlife trade and important tools such as
forensic and financial investigations are rarely
employed.
We believe that, the HKSAR Government
could and should be a leader in combatting
wildlife crime not just regionally, but globally.
It is in a position to demonstrate to the local/
international community and the criminal
syndicates behind the multi-billion dollar
illegal wildlife trade, that although Hong
Kong is a free port, it has zero tolerance for
wildlife crime. By not taking this opportunity,
its reputation as Asia’s Worlds City is at risk,
particularly as it moves forward with ambitious
plans to facilitate global trade with China.
The following recommendations are intended
to represent best practice, address loopholes
and reflect the increasing global concern
relative to international wildlife crime.
3