Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Storage/possession of protected wildlife

Legal area

Court

19 Feb 2026

1. ) BUI THI NGAN 2. ) BUI VAN NOI 3. ) BUI VAN ANH 4. ) LIM HENG HUI

Citation

CA-62ES-11-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-62ES-11-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Applying established authorities, the court found that surveillance, consistent seizure locations within the defendants' occupied premises, expert morphological and DNA identifications, documentary licence checks and the totality of circumstantial evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants stored protected wildlife parts and snares and acted with common intention under s34; exclusive ownership was unnecessary for a conviction under the storage offences of Akta 716, therefore all defendants were convicted on all counts.
19 Feb 2026

1. ) BUI THI NGAN 2. ) BUI VAN NOI 3. ) BUI VAN ANH 4. ) LIM HENG HUI

Citation

CA-62ES-15-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-62ES-15-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the totality of surveillance evidence, agreed facts, expert identification and witness testimony (including owner/occupier evidence), the court found beyond reasonable doubt that the seized protected wildlife parts and traps were being stored at the premises and vehicles, and that the three defendants had knowledge and common intention to commit the offences under sections 68(1)(b), 60(1)(b) and 29(1) read with section 34; accordingly the prosecution established the offences and the defendants were convicted and sentenced.