Breakdown of Cases Prosecuted for Illegal Import and Export of Endangered Species in the Past Five Years

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development of the cases prosecuted for the illegal import and export of endangered species in the past five years, how many involved (i) the person prosecuted is only delivering the endangered species and is not the seller and (ii) the person prosecuted is the seller of the endangered species.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from 2017 to 2021, 18 cases were prosecuted for the illegal trade of endangered species under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, or ESA, for short. In seven of these cases, the persons prosecuted were involved only in transporting the endangered species. There was no evidence they were selling the species or keeping the species for their personal use.

Of the remaining 11 cases, the persons prosecuted in four cases were found to be transporting the endangered species to sell the species. The persons prosecuted in the other seven cases were found to be transporting the endangered species for their personal use.

Thank you, Sir. Two quick clarifications. I think that is the worry on the ground, that we are only catching the runners and not making an effective dent on the illegal wildlife trade. So, could I ask the Minister of State whether NParks is looking into the money trail, doing financial audits for each of the wildlife crime cases that we are handling?

Secondly, is NParks working with the financial institutions to ensure that they are filing suspicious transaction reports related to wildlife crime?

On the first question, Mr Speaker, NParks and foreign enforcement agencies have not found any associations with illegal wildlife trade syndicates or organised crimes in Singapore or overseas in the 18 cases at this point in time.

Specifically, to the seven cases where the persons prosecuted were involved only in transporting the endangered species, NParks did not find any evidence that other persons in Singapore were involved. The investigation findings were also shared with INTERPOL and the source and destination countries, if we know them, for further investigations. We have not received any information from INTERPOL or our foreign enforcement agency counterparts that these persons were acting as part of a larger organised crime syndicate or network.

In response to the Member's second question, I would also like to refer the Member to the reply to his Oral Question in the Sitting on 2 November 2020, where Mr Ong Ye Kung replied on behalf of Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister and Minister in-charge of MAS. In the reply, Minister Ong Ye Kung gave a fuller reply around the various rules and regulations in place to look at illegal wildlife trade and money laundering and organised crimes.

But I would just also direct the Member's attention to the part of the reply, which I think addresses his question, about having public-private partnerships playing an important role in our effort to combat illegal wildlife trade and money laundering.

The Government has enhanced the collective understanding of illegal wildlife trade risks by sharing case studies and red-flag indicators with banks, traders, agents who apply for trade permits and this has helped them to better detect and report suspicious fund flows linked to illegal wildlife trade.

Notwithstanding that, we will continue to be vigilant to the threat posed by illegal wildlife trade and related money laundering. NParks will work closely with other agencies, like MAS and the other enforcement agencies, in this regard.