Hong Kong's illegal wildlife trade flourishes despite amendments to legislation.
Hong Kong’s illegal wildlife trade is flourishing despite the enactment of tougher laws aimed at shutting down syndicates making millions of dollars off endangered species, experts have said, noting authorities have failed to use their new powers.
The Organised and Serious Crime Ordinance was amended in 2021 to cover certain wildlife trafficking-related crimes but had yet to be used for any prosecutions, according to environmental group ADM Capital Foundation and criminal lawyer Amanda Whitfort.
The amendment, which was hailed as “historic” and “landmark” at the time, allows authorities to secure court orders to acquire documents relevant to their investigations that they would otherwise not be able to obtain. It also enabled judges to confiscate the proceeds of wildlife crimes and apply harsher penalties.
But Whitfort, a barrister and associate law professor, said the changes had so far proven essentially useless.
“The enforcement officers that have the power to use it claim that there has been no evidence of organised and serious crime, which does not seem to me to be likely given the extremely large seizures,” she said. “I find it, as a criminal lawyer, extraordinary to suggest that there’s no evidence of organised crime when you have that amount of contraband.”
In 2020 and 2021 alone, customs seized more than 676 tonnes of endangered species estimated to be worth more than HK$221 million (US$28.2 million).
Seizures included a record 26 tonnes of smuggled dried shark fins in April and May 2020, worth about HK$8.6 million, and 4.12 tonnes of red sandalwood in January last year with an estimated market value of HK$20.7 million.
In July, authorities discovered a shipment of about 60 pieces of hippopotamus ivory and roughly 3,300 live tortoises, among other things, worth HK$2 million.
Dr. Astrid Andersson, a wildlife forensics expert at the University of Hong Kong, said that for a relatively small place, the city seized enormous volumes of illegal animals and parts.
“It’s obviously not for domestic consumption,” she said. “It just goes to show there is a tendency for wildlife to be funnelled through this very small area.”
The foundation said it learned authorities had failed to use their new powers in a meeting with the Customs and Excise Department in February, while Whitfort said the situation was revealed to her in March in a meeting of the government’s interdepartmental Task Force on Wildlife Crime, held once a year.
The task force consists of customs, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), police and the Environment Bureau. When contacted for comment, customs and the AFCD stopped short of revealing whether the ordinance had ever been invoked in its wildlife trafficking cases, while the force declined to comment.
A closer inspection of the ordinance reveals that only customs or police have the power to invoke it, not the AFCD. It is understood that after customs makes seizures at the borders the case is passed within a day or two to the AFCD, which handles wildlife.
This left customs and police technically unable to investigate the cases.
Sam Inglis, a researcher at ADM Capital Foundation, said customs had told the organisation that transferring the case within a few days was “a realistic time window”, but he suspected a longer period could help authorities build a stronger case. He said: -
“If you are trying to detect a sophisticated, smart, experienced and professionalised group of traffickers, and you reflect on the prosecution rate of syndicates in that city, there’s cause to wonder if we allowed ourselves more time, if we seized more of their sort of their bank details, if we went to multiple locations, if there was more undercover work, could we build stronger cases?”
Brian Gonzales, head of protection of endangered species at WWF-Hong Kong, suggested that the task force set up specialised units dedicated to specific cases. He stated: -
“By doing so, it could delve into the money trails [through the amended ordinance] so that the government could fully utilise its anti-money-laundering powers against wildlife crimes,”
“My opinion is that the task force just meets and then that’s it,” Gonzales said, adding it was important to identify the ultimate beneficial owners of these illegal commodities.
Added Whitfort:
“We have only ever seen the mules prosecuted in Hong Kong. Every mule was paid by someone, yet there doesn’t appear to have been any attempt to follow the money trail.”
The task force was established in 2016 “as a platform that facilitates communication and cooperation for combating wildlife crimes, in particular those with serious and organised crime elements”, according to the government.
Andersson conceded catching criminals could be difficult given the confusion that could arise when permitted trade was closely tied to the illegal one.
“Drugs are more clear cut, but when it comes to wildlife, there is so much grey area,” she said. “A lot of the illegal trade happens within the legal trade. There’s a lot of laundering going on, a lot of confusion in society and enforcement.
Scientists such as herself have been working to provide forensic tools to help law enforcement, developing tools such as a rapid test that determines the species of shark fins within a few hours, for example.
“We can’t expect officers to know every species of every wild animal being traded,” she said. “Even scientists don’t necessarily know that, but we can at least increase awareness and provide the tools.”
But stepping up enforcement could yield outsize returns, she argued.
“If we prosecute the criminals, it’ll have a huge impact around the world. It’s a high return on investment…Hong Kong could shine as a beacon of exemplary action and show other places how it’s done.”
Main Source: SCMP
