On June 9, 2006, at 8:00pm, the defendant Maged Tareq Mohammed Awn arrived at Guangzhou Baiyun Airport, declared nothing to customs before entering China. Guangdong customs officials intercepted 6 elephant tusks, hidden in his suitcase. The seized ivory tusks were estimated to be worth 1,500,000RMB, which weigh a total of 33.34kg. The defendant told the court that the elephant tusks can be trade freely in Yemen and he did not know it would be illegal to bring ivory into China. (Provided by: UNODC SHERLOC)
In mid-November 2006, the defendant Wang Jiangdu cooperated with Wang Tianjian and transported a batch of “seafood” to China via Xiamen-Jinmen Sea Area for a Taiwanese businessman. Wang Tianjian sailed a fishing boat to Jing Men sea area and took over 54 boxes of goods, then sailed back towards Xiamen city when he was stopped by an officer of the Anti-Smuggling Bureau of Xiamen Customs. In the meantime, Wang Jiangdu was waiting to receive the goods at the dock and spoke with Wang Tianjian through phone for many times. When he heard of Wang Tianjian’s arrest he escaped from the area. On December 21, Wang Jiangdu gave himself up to the police and argued that he did not hire Wang Tianjian to transport the goods to China and he was neither the owner of the goods nor participant of the shipping. He argued that he was only waiting for the cargo at the dock under the arrangement of a Taiwanese man.
The customs official discovered 102 alligators (2 died) in the 50 boxes, and the other 4 boxes were filled with 12000 turtle eggs. The seized items had an estimated sale price of 6000-7200 RMB in total.
The defendant Cen Zahangyao colluded with overseas person Ayazi and defendant Wuzheng, whilst planning to smuggle saker falcons (national key protection animals) out of China to other countries. After some negotiations, Wu Zheng took responsibility for booking cargo space, arranging customs documents. Cen Zhangyao promised to pay 3,000 yuan for the smuggling of every saker falcon.
Ayazi entrusted the others to transport the falcons to Cen Zhangyao and after receiving the falcons, Cen transferred them to a place near the airport directly and handed them over to Wu Zheng who had been waiting outside the airport. Wuzheng handed the falcons to Zhang Hao, who booked the cargo space and declared the falcons to customs officials as glass goblets. As agreed in advance, custom officers Zhu Qianwei and Qian Wenbin did not carrying out inspection when performing the duty of safety check. The falcons were to be transported to Qatar when they were discovered by other customs officers who opened and checked the cargo box.
Investigation showed that from 2007 to 2008, defendants Cen Zhangyao, Wu Zheng, Zhang Hao, Qian Wenbin were engaged in the smuggling of 82 saker falcons. Zhu Qianwei was engaged in smuggling 70. (Provided by: UNODC SHERLOC)
On June 30, 2010, the defendant, Shi Xiuhong arrived at Guangzhou Baiyun Airport on a flight from Congo. Shi carried two pieces of blackwood and chose to go through the "Non-declare channel" to enter China (declared nothing to the customs). The customs officials discovered the blackwood packed in silver paper in his suitcase, and the hollow black wood contained elephant tusks, which weighed 2.086kg in total. The next day, 20 ivory products, weighing 0.865kg, were discovered in the milk powder cans and cups which were also packed in silver paper in another suitcase belonging to the defendant. The seized elephant tusks and ivory products were worth 206293.317 RMB in total.
Shi Xiuhong claimed that he was entrusted by other person to carry the blackwood back and to hand it over to a professor in China. He alleged to not know that there were elephant tusks in the blackwood before he was stopped by the customs. (Provided by: UNODC SHERLOC)
From December 2009 to April 2010, the defendants Huang Yawen, Chen Song, Cheng Zhiqiang and Fu Qiang were twice employed by Pangma (handed separately) to help NG SOO HEONG (nicknamed "tall guys") smuggle frozen pangolin and scales into China by a wooden fishing vessel "Pearl Bay, 3815". Huang Yawen was responsible for sailing and the other 3 defendants moved the goods. Each of them got paid more than 8000 yuan and several pangolins.
On June 6 2010, NG SOO HEONG, Huang Yawen and other 3 people were arrested by Jiangmen Customs when they were discharging the smuggled items in waters off the Zhuhai Airport. Customs officials seized 2090 frozen pangolins (7850kg) in 30 boxes, and 92 cases of pangolin scales weighing 1,800 kg. The smuggled pangolins and scales were worth nearly 5.2 million yuan (RMB 5,197,040). (Provided by: UNODC SHERLOC)
On April 9, 2011, the defendant, Li Ming (Chinese passport holder) was captured by custom officials at the immigration hall of Huang Gang, Shenzhen with 100 Ivory products in his bag. The confiscated products included 4 Ivory crowns, 24 pairs of ivory chopsticks, 6 ivory seal embryo, 7 ivory necklace, 13 ivory bracelets, 6 ivory combs, 2 ivory bracelets, 4 ivory rings, 9 ivory heart-shaped pendant, 1 ivory cigarette holder. Identified by State Forestry Administration Detecting Center of Wildlife, the items, which weigh 7.74 kg in total, were Asian or African elephant ivory or ivory products. In accordance with the relevant provisions of “The Notice of National Forestry Bureau on Evaluation of Value of Smuggled Ivory and Ivory Products”, the seized ivory products were worth RMB 322502.58.
The defendant pleaded guilty in court but disagreed with the value of the ivory product.
The defendant argued that :
1. The defendant Li purchased ivory products for his own collection and for his friends as gifts, not for the purpose of smuggling and reselling;
2. The defendant had no knowledge that travelers are not allowed to bring ivory product into China, and he was not trying to avoid the supervision and control of the Customs, instead, he actively cooperated during inspection;
3 The price of involved ivory products only worth a few thousand yuan, which is much lower than RMB 322502.58. (Provided by: UNODC SHERLOC)
The Peoples Procuratorate of Yilihasake Autonomous Prefecture Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region v. Kudulaiti Aikebaierweiqi Duerdiyoufu
On April 2, 2001, based on the criminal facts and circumstances of the defendant and the degree of harm to the society, The Intermediate People’s Court of Yilihasake Autonomous Prefecture, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region rendered the following judgment: Defendant: Kudulaiti Aikebaierweiqi Duerdiyoufu Verdict: Guilty Charge/Claim: Smuggling Term of imprisonment: life sentence (2nd instance: deportation) Fine/Payment to the State: 1000 RMB. The captured smuggled antelope horns were confiscated.
The appellant pleaded guilty to various offences consisting of dealing with specimens of rare orchids,which were protected by regulations made in accordance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). He had travelled extensively to obtain samples of rare orchids from the wild, with a view to selling them to dealers and collectors. Sentenced to a total of 12 months' imprisonment, with four to serve and the balance suspended, fined GBP 10,000, with a forfeiture order in respect of the specimen plants, and ordered to pay GBP 10,000 prosecution costs. The appellant was fined GBP 200, onother charges.
The three offences in counts 2, 3 and 4 of the principal indictment, involving offering for sale restricted specimens, being knowingly concerned in the harbouring, keeping or concealing of or dealing with restricted goods and selling restricted specimens, concerned the applicant dealing in rare species orchids. The orchids concerned were slipper orchids from South America. Over a period of time it is plain from the pleas and the nature of the counts that the applicant has been trading in prohibited species of orchids. He is a considerable expert in his own right. He is an amateur botanist who hasobviously become a leading authority on orchids of horticultural merit in general and slipper orchids inparticular.
The current appeal case holds that the sentence of 12 months was too long, bearing in mind that the maximum sentence for the offence was two years, and that the same offence covered dealing in the products of dead animals,such as ivory and rhino horn.
The Court has decided that the proper sentence in this case is one of six months'imprisonment, which should be treated as suspended as to the balance of that period from today,which will result in the applicant's immediate release. The fine of GBP 10,000 should be reduced to a fine of GBP 2,500, which is approximately the amount which the applicant says he is able to offer from the profits of his grocer's shop by payments of GBP 200 a month. The Court did not think it right to order installment payments, but simply to say that there should be a fine of GBP 2,500 payable in 12 months from today with a two month period of imprisonment in default. There should be no alteration of the additional small fine of GBP 200, making a total financial penalty of GBP 2,700. The order for costs of the prosecution should be remitted.
The final result therefore is that the applicant will have a sentence of six months in all (all the sentences being concurrent), so much of which is suspended as to allow his immediaterelease, fined GBP 2,700 payable in 12 months with two months in default, and no further order. (Provided by: UNODC SHERLOC)
The appellant pleaded guilty to being knowingly concerned in fraudulently evading the prohibition on the importation of a prohibited species of endangered falcon. He was stopped while entering the country with his car, which was found to contain four young birds of prey, Gyr falcons, worth between GBP 10,000 - 15,000 each.
The appellant was stopped at the customs point at Eastern Docks, Dover, in June 2010, by customs officers who searched and found the said material intended for trafficking. A seat of the car was adapted, by taking out the foam, to hide the said material. In answer to the customs officer, the appellant admitted that he thought it was illegal to import the birds. He was subsequently arrested.
He said he had obtained the materials in Germany and that he had been offered the German equivalent of GBP 600 plus expenses to bring them into the country although he had not at the time of his arrest been paid anything. He went on to say that he was instructed to deliver them to another person who would approach him in a parking place outside the customs area at Dover. He had no knowledge of the identity of that person.
The appellant was convicted on the one count and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. He now appeals this sentence, raising the contention that there should not have been any custodial sentence at all, and if so 18 months is far too extensive for the offence committed. He also submits that in any event, his role in this particular enterprise was a very humble one.
The Court reasoned that for purposes of deterrence, custodial sentence of some length was inevitable and was properly regarded by the learned judge. The Court draws attention to the appellant's good character, the fact that this was an isolated incident, that he has lost his job in consequence of it, and that not only has he got nothing out of it but he has suffered the loss of GBP 2,000 to which was already referred above.
As such, the Court reasoned that an appropriate sentence for this offence was one of nine months instead of 18, and as such the sentence of 18 months is quashed and substituted for a sentence of nine months. (Provided by: UNODC SHERLOC)
The appellant was convicted of one count of keeping and offering for sale a peregrine falcon and six counts of selling such birds, contrary to the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement)Regulations 1985. An off-duty police officer guarding the nest of a breeding pair of peregrine falcons saw three men, including the appellant, approach the nest site and subsequently found that two chicks were missing. When his premises were searched a year later, a number of peregrine falcons were found. Sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
The question raised is not whether he ought to have been sentenced to imprisonment but whether the sentence of 18 months was or was not excessive. The maximum sentence for any of these offences was one of two years' imprisonment. There were here seven offences with which the court had to dealand the sentences of 18 months' imprisonment were imposed concurrently.
Mr Salter, appearing on behalf of the defendant, says that the offences were not at the top of the scale of possible offending; the appellant was genuinely interested in birds and knowledgeable about them; he was not simply taking birds from wild life solely for the purpose of profit or cruelty; and accordingly the sentence of 18 months'imprisonment, which allowed for the sentence not being at the top of the range, was not sufficiently scaled down.
The appellant did not plead guilty; he contested the matter all the way. In this Court's judgment the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, which was imposed by the trial judge on each of the counts, was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Accordingly, the appeal against sentence must be dismissed. (Provided by: UNODC SHERLOC)