Illegal wildlife trade
in Thailand
Presented by Kidngarm K.LI
Judge of the Office of the Judiciary Court of Thailand
The overview of the wildlife
trade situation in Thailand

Situation
-7th Economic and
Social development
plan (1992-1996): to
maintain economic
growth and achieve
sustainable
development

Legal instrument
and Government
effort in handling
with the illegal
wildlife trade
type of animal
number (piece)
Turtle
8,597
bird
6,128
crocodile
3,543
snake
2,990
ivory
515
tiger
12
elephant
1
others
5,585
carcasses
1,589
Wild Animals Reservation and
Protection Act
26 December 1960 (B.E. 2504)
The Wildlife Reservation and Protection
Act 1992 (B.E. 2535)
Legal instrument
was adopted on 19 February 1992
Government effort For Wildlife
Preservation
Wildlife Preservation
Created by Royal Decree
44 Areas account for about 19,880,837 rais
Wildlife Sanctuaries
• Created by Royal Decree
• 54 Sanctuaries covering 2,671,050 rais
Wildlife Checks points
• 49 Stop checks covering all exits from the
countries
Wildlife Breeding Stations
• 18 station nationwide
• To accommodate abandon wildlife animals
Wildlife Preservation Promotion
Unit
• 18 units nationwide
• To disseminate information to youngsters and
public to create an understanding about
preserving wildlife
Wildlife research stations
• 3 stations across the country
• To study wildlife in their natural habitat
The causes of the decline of
wildlife in Thailand
Actions Done
Because of Lack
of Knowledge
High reward
influenced
crime
Use of Chemicals
and Pesticides
Illegal
poaching
Encroachment on
Forest Areas
To be analyzed?
Prevention
Legal Enforcement






(1)Low penalties prescribed by law if
compared to rich rewards as it
enacted since 1992
(2)Sentences may vary between
regions because each region may vary
from each other and defendant’s
circumstances
(3)Few cases appealed to the
Supreme Court so there is not too
strong sign to show people of how
seriousness the crime is.
(4)The understanding and experience
of the prosecution about
environmental case handling.
(5)Limitation in Court Procedure : we
categorize wildlife offences as criminal
cases which plaintiff has a duty to
proof guilty.
(7) Gap of law and a limited number
of enforcement officer


In order to reduce
the opportunity to do
the offences
Make it more
difficult, more risky
and less rewarding
(1) Maximum penalties applicable to wildlife trade in
Thailand under The Wildlife Reservation and Protection
Act 1992
Charges
Imprisonment
Max.
Financial Penalty
Max
Trade and trafficking
offences
40,000
4 years
Possession of species
40,000
4 years
Hunt or attempt to
hunt
40,000
4 years
Harms endangered
species
10,000
1 year
Move without
permission in written
5,000
-
(2)-(3)Judicial Sanction

Some sentences might slightly vary from region to region
because each region differentiate from each other and it has to
take into account the defendant’s circumstances. Besides, judges
are independent in trial and adjudication, they have the discretion
to consider relevant factors before sentencing without any
interference. However such sentences are within the law
prescribed.

It should be noted that the effort of the Supreme Court in
developing the sentencing guideline will be a tool for judges to
exercise their discretions consistent nationwide. Nevertheless, not
many cases were appealed to the SC and almost of them asking
to suspend sentences.

The establishment of Green Bench in all levels of court helps to
create capacity building of judges in handling environmental
cases. The Court of Justice also provide training to judges in
environmental knowledge and adjudication.
Statistic of the crime against wildlife appeal to
the Supreme Court in the past 6 years
Series 1
30
25
20
15
Series 1
10
5
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
(4)The understanding and experience of
the prosecutor in environmental case
Particular mention to the preparation of
cases
To ensure the relevant factors in
relation to the gravity of the
offence, defendant’s
circumstances
Scientific knowledge to legal
matters such as DNA,Specimen
Identification and expert
witness
(5) The limitation of Court Procedure

Wildlife offence was categorized a criminal
case which the plaintiff has a duty to prove
the defendant’s guilty. We use criminal
procedure law which was not designed for
environmental law offences. Fortunately, we
are in the process of drafting environmental
case procedures which will use inquisitorial
system.
(6) Gap of law
and lack of
enforcement
officer
The Act licensing people
to own wildlife and
carcasses in some cases
Limited numbers of
enforcement officer who
know forensic and can
identify wildlife types
So the offender will
conceal or hide the
prohibited wildlife with
a permitted ones
This limited numbers
caused the difficulty in
illegal wildlife trade control
• Through school and out of
educate school,
• Through texts, news,
article
• Ex: exhibitions,
Joining movement
activities• Providing information to
official
Prevention is better than cure
Reflect the principles
of CITES in domestic
law & practice
Education and
training play an
important role
What we
have done !
Development of
effective sentencing
guildeline
Support awareness
raising programme
Recommendations
Reduce the
opportunity to do
the offence by
make it more risky
and less rewarding
Give priority to
transnational
wildlife crime
Raise the
maximum penalty
especially financial
penalty
Support finance,
training &
resources for
authorities
Effective legal
framework
Promote public
awareness
Thank you for your kind attention !