Wildlife Protection: Two Fines Imposed for Unlicensed Possession of Protected Species
Seremban Sessions Court Fines Man RM10,000 for Possessing Protected Wildlife
In a recent case, the Seremban Sessions Court fined a 30-year-old man, Muhammad Nazrin Md Yunus, RM10,000 for possessing two protected wildlife species without a licence. Nazrin pleaded guilty to two charges of possessing a protected animal without a licence and was fined RM5,000 for each charge in default of three months’ jail.
Protected Species Found
The protected species in question were a Malayan porcupine (Hystrix brachyura) and a white-rumped shama (Copsychus malabaricus), both classified as protected under the Wildlife Conservation (Amendment) Act 2022. The offences were committed at a residence in Felda Pasoh 1, Simpang Pertang in Jelebu on May 21, 2024.
Charges Under Section 60(1)(a)
Both charges are under Section 60(1)(a) of the act, which criminalises those possessing protected wildlife without a valid licence. Nazrin, who did not have legal representation, appealed for a lighter sentence, citing financial difficulties and the need to care for his parents.
Prosecution’s Appeal
The prosecution, handled by Ain Nur Shainaz from the Wildlife and National Parks Department (Perhilitan), urged the court to impose a sentence that can serve as a deterrent. The prosecution argued that the fine should be sufficient to discourage others from committing similar offences.
Similar Case: Restaurant Assistant Fined RM5,000
In a similar case, the same court ordered a restaurant assistant, Tan Mei Ching, to pay a RM5,000 fine for possessing an African-spurred tortoise (Geochelone sulcata). Tan, 42, pleaded guilty to the possession of the protected species, classified as an offence under Section 60(1)(a) of the same act. The offence was committed in Taman Baiduri in April 2024.
Unrepresented Offenders
Both Nazrin and Tan were unrepresented in court, but both have since paid off their fines. Tan claimed that she and her family did not know the tortoise was a protected species and kept it for "feng shui" purposes.
Conclusion
The cases of Nazrin and Tan serve as a reminder of the importance of strict enforcement of wildlife protection laws. The fines imposed on the offenders demonstrate the seriousness with which the court views the possession of protected species without a valid licence. It is crucial that individuals and businesses understand the implications of such actions and take steps to ensure compliance with the law.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the Wildlife Conservation (Amendment) Act 2022?
A: The act is a legislative framework for the conservation of wildlife in Malaysia.
Q: What are the penalties for possessing protected species without a licence?
A: Offenders can face fines and imprisonment.
Q: How can individuals and businesses ensure compliance with wildlife protection laws?
A: By conducting thorough research on protected species and obtaining necessary permits or licenses.