Myanmar trio acquitted in Sumatran serow case

PETALING JAYA: The Raub sessions court has acquitted three Myanmar nationals charged with possessing 11 body parts of a fully protected Sumatran serow (mountain goat) without a special permit, after ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against them.

Judge Noor Zaihan Ali held that the prosecution failed to prove the accused had “stored” the wildlife parts within the meaning of Section 68(1)(b) of the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010.

In her judgment, she said a maximum evaluation of the evidence showed the essential elements of the charge had not been made out under the Act, read together with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

“Accordingly, all three accused were discharged without being called to enter their defence,” she said.

Thang Law Ha, She Hung and Mang Shing Ling were alleged to have committed the offence at about 11.15am on March 16, 2025, at their workers’ quarters in Tringkap, Cameron Highlands.

Under the law, conviction carries a minimum fine of RM150,000 per protected animal, body part or derivative involved, and a jail term of up to 15 years. In this case, the minimum fine could have totalled RM1.65 million.

Zaihan said the animal parts were discovered in open and accessible areas of the workers’ quarters, specifically inside a bathroom wall cavity and beneath a kitchen shelf, rather than in places under the exclusive possession or control of the accused.

“Evidence showed that the premises could be accessed by other workers and visitors to the farm,” she said.

She also distinguished the case from previous rulings in which wildlife items were found in locked rooms or vehicles under the exclusive control of the accused persons.

The judge noted that the prosecution had failed to identify all individuals who had access to the premises.

“The statements of the accused that the dried animal parts were already present at the premises when they moved in were found to be consistent and were supported by expert evidence indicating that the specimens had been dry for a considerable period,” she said.

While forensic DNA testing confirmed the samples were from protected wildlife, Zaihan said, the prosecution had not produced fingerprint or DNA evidence linking the accused to the seized items.

“The wildlife forensic analyst also acknowledged that visual examination alone could not conclusively identify the specimens as protected wildlife without DNA analysis,” she said.

Lawyer A Logaprieyan represented the three men, while deputy public prosecutor Danial Munir appeared for the prosecution.