Wildlife trafficking widespread, but major offenders escape with soft penalties, finds report

Wildlife trafficking, including illegal hunting, trade, transport and possession, continues to dominate the transnational wildlife trade, yet high-level offenders often escape with comparatively light punishments, a new study has found.

The analysis was conducted by civil society organisation Wildlife Justice Commission (WJC) that works in tandem with law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute serious and organised wildlife crimes.

WJC examined how wildlife offences are criminalised and penalised in 19 jurisdictions central to the global rhino horn supply chain, one of the most recognised and well-documented wildlife trafficking networks. The researchers also assessed whether domestic laws incorporated provisions from the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC).

The study, Is Wildlife Trafficking Being Treated as Serious Crime?, focused on seven offence categories across the supply chain: trafficking through illegal import, export, re-export or smuggling; illegal hunting through poaching, capture or killing; illegal trade through sale and purchase; illegal possession through keeping or utilisation; illegal captive breeding through farming or ranching; illegal transport; and illegal processing or manufacture.

“While not representative of all supply chains, rhino horn is a high-value commodity targeted by organised crime networks and emblematic of serious, transnational wildlife crimes,” the report said. “Its supply chain involves multiple criminal components across numerous jurisdictions and continents, from source to destination markets.”

Findings showed that 89 per cent of jurisdictions studied had offences relating to illegal captive breeding. Thirteen of the 19 jurisdictions (68 per cent) criminalised attempts to commit wildlife offences, including incomplete acts and conspiracy. Four (21 per cent) only partially criminalised attempts, focusing on specific offences such as hunting or import, while two had no provisions at all.

Case analysis of 10 rhino horn trafficking prosecutions revealed that in 47 per cent of cases perpetrators received between four and 10 years’ imprisonment, while in 37 per cent sentences exceeded 10 years. However, 16 per cent were punished with fewer than four years. 

All jurisdictions studied provided for seizure and confiscation of wildlife exhibits. 

Evidence from case law, however, showed critical gaps in consistency and proportionality of sentencing: Some high-level offenders received comparatively low penalties (including fines substituting for custodial sentences), while lower-level actors faced harsher sanctions, the report said.

“High-level offenders receiving low penalties, often fines, fail to reflect the seriousness of the crimes, while lower-level criminals face harsher sanctions,” it warned.

The findings, the WJC said, offer lessons in best practice and highlight challenges relevant not only to rhino horn trafficking but to wildlife crime and environmental offences more broadly.