Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Written evidence submitted by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (SC 14)

About the International Fund for Animal Welfare

Founded in 1969, the International Fund for Animal Welfare saves individual animals, animal populations and habitats all over the world. With projects in more than 40 countries, IFAW provides hands-on assistance to animals in need, whether it's dogs and cats, wildlife and livestock, or rescuing animals in the wake of disasters. We also advocate saving populations from cruelty and depletion, such as our campaign to end commercial whaling and seal hunts.

Summary

1. IFAW welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Public Bill Commi ttee on the Serious Crime Bill, in particular those provisions which amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990. The UK Commitment to Action on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, published in February 2014 , stated:

"The UK Government and U K law enforcement agencies will…. l ink action on IWT to existing efforts to tackle other forms of organised crime , through th e Serio us and Organised Crime Strategy , focusing on specific action to tackle cross-border organised crime in source and transit countries" [1] . As yet, the Government ha s not taken this forward.

2. This submission is intended to provide evidence that wildlife cybercrime constitutes serious crime and requires additional measures, which could be provided for by a number of minor amendments.

3. At a time when the poaching of endangered wildlife has reached unprecedented levels, the widespread availability of the Internet has transformed some traditional criminal activity to the extent that law-breaking takes place on an extraordinary scale. Governments must ensure they have robust laws in place that specifically tackle the unique challenges of wildlife cybercrime supported by sufficient enforcement capacity, while online marketplaces must commit to strong policies that are effectively implemented to prevent their platforms being abused by wildlife criminals.

4. It was in this context of high levels of poaching and the increasing threat of cybercrime that IFAW investigated the trade in endangered wildlife taking place across 280 online marketplaces in 16 countries during a six-week period in 2014. IFAW contracted MK Consultancy, which is a company set up by the former Head of London’s Metropolitan Wildlife Crime Unit and the former Head of UK Border Force’s CITES Unit, who have more than 40 years of experience of wildlife crime enforcement, to support investigators by assisting with the identification of species and the compilation of intelligence packages for enforcement agencies to ensure that the quality of the data supplied met the highest policing standards. The results of this investigation were published in November 2014 in Wanted - Dead or Alive: Exposing Online Wildlife Trade [2] .

5. Investigators found a total of 33,006 endangered wildlife and wildlife parts and products from species listed on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix I and II available for sale in 9,482 advertisements, estimated to be worth at least £7,088,251.

6. IFAW has been investigating wildlife trade over the Internet since 2004 with past investigations including:

· Caught in the Web: Wildlife Trade on the Internet (2005) [3]

· Bidding for Extinction (2007) [4]

· Killing with Keystrokes: An Investigation of the Illegal Wildlife Trade on the World Wide Web (2008) [5]

· Killing with Keystrokes 2.0: IFAW’s Investigation into the European Online Ivory Trade (2011) [6]

· Making a Killing: A 2011 Survey of Ivory Markets in China (2012) [7]

· Click to Delete: Australian Websites Selling Endangered Wildlife – Australia (2014) [8]

· Bidding Against Survival: The Elephant Poaching Crisis and the Role of Auctions in the U.S. Ivory Market (2014) [9]

Clauses 40-43 and 46

7. Clauses 40-43 cover computer misuse, amending the Computer Misuse Act 1990. We welcome in particular clause 40, which makes clear that ‘a person is guilty of an offence if the person does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer’. T he clause states t hat the person will be guilty , if at the time of doing the act the person knows that the activity is unauthorised . However, IFAW’s view is that the person carrying out the offence should be deemed guilty whether he or she was aware that the act was unauthorised , or not. In situations where there is evidence that illegal activity may be commonplace, we argue that the host of such activity, i.e. the website owner, should have an obligation to make site visitors aware that such activity may be, or is, illegal.

8. Subsection 2 which makes a person guilty of an offence when ‘ the act causes, or creates a significant risk of, serious damage of a material kind ’ and sub section d) ‘ the person intends by doing the act to cause serious damage of a material kind or is reckless as to whether such damage is caused ’ are also important provisions. However, it is our view that the list defining what constitutes ‘material’ damage, as laid out in clause 40, is incomplete. Our evidence shows that damage is of a ‘material kind’ if it is damage to animal welfare in any place. The existing provision includes ‘damage to the environment’ , ‘damage to the economy of any country’ and ‘damage to national security’ as constituting damage to human welfare.

9. I t is clear to IFAW that damage to the populations of endangered species, such as rhinos, constitutes damage to both the environment , the economy of some of the poorest countries in the world and national security. However, it is our view that , as the clau se specifically refers to human welfare, ‘damage to animal welfare in any place’ should also be explicitly laid out in the clause .

10. This submission is intended to provide evidence which explains why the cybercrime relating to endangered animals or their parts constitutes serious crime. A key element of amending clause 40, subsection 2, would therefore be to outline that the animal or their parts would be those regarded as most endangered, i.e. those listed in Appendix I or II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna [10] .

11. Under CITES, the highest level of protection is afforded to the more than 800 Appendix I species designated as being in immediate danger of extinction. With a few exceptions, commercial trade in Appendix I species is banned.

12. Species listed on CITES Appendix II are recognised as requiring protection from trade, but not to the point of a ban.

13. We also welcome clause 42, which provides for recourse to UK law, despite any international dimension of these crimes, as it is clear that cybercrime does not respect national borders. It is clear that the countries in which endangered animals and their parts are sourced, particularly the African nations, are in general not where the demand originates, which is in particular the Asian nations. It is also clear, however, that substantial demand also originates in Europe, in particular for live animals, and that much of this arrives from Africa via Asian sellers.

14. In our 2014 investigation, it emerged that UK websites hosted 1,087 online advertisements during the six-week period, offering a total of 2,063 items for sale. More than two-thirds of these were for wildlife parts and products rather than live animals. The majority of advertisements surveyed on the 13 websites monitored were for CITES Appendix I specimens (1,011 advertisements), i.e. in immediate danger of extinction.

15. The number of Appendix I items recorded in this investigation has increased dramatically compared with IFAW’s 2008 survey Killing with Keystrokes, although this can be partly explained by a broadening in the scope of live animals recorded. However, ivory and suspected ivory listings have increased from 279 advertisements in 2008 to 409 advertisements across all websites in 2014.

16. Out of the total advertisements, 855 or 79 per cent suggested some claim to legality - the highest percentage of any country in this survey, with most ivory sellers stating that their items for sale were antiques. However, only six advertisements found in the survey offered any supporting proof of origin/legality of a proposed sale.

17. IFAW asks the Committee to include within these provisions, a requirement for those advertising an animal or its parts for sale online to display a valid permit to trade in CITES Appendix I or II species. Were a seller to have committed a criminal offence for failing to include evidence of legality within the advert, it is our view that it would be easier to identify which sales were taking place illegally and which were not. The legal trade in these products can act as a smokescreen for the trade in illegal products and a criminal offence in this respect would expose such crimes and support marketplaces in ensuring that they are not providing a platform for illegal trade.

18. The most dominant site for sales in the UK as recorded in this investigation is eBay.co.uk, although Preloved.co.uk and Gumtree.com (a subsidiary of eBay Inc.) also had significant amounts of trade, with 147 and 109 advertisements respectively. A new feature on Preloved.co.uk since the 2008 investigation requires those selling live animals to state whether they have the correct permit to sell their items. The UK was distinct for the number of sellers based overseas - out of the total, investigators identified 62 sellers located outside the EU who offered to ship items, mainly from the USA and China.

19. Perhaps due to a historic demand for ivory in the UK, the UK investigation found ivory and suspected ivory advertisements represented 38 per cent of all advertisements recorded in this survey. Suspected ivory examples were identified by IFAW’s expert investigator, who has more than 20 years of experience of wildlife crime enforcement and is highly skilled at ivory identification.

20. Although similar in size to the eBay German marketplace where few suspected ivory items were recorded in this survey, eBay.co.uk hosted 376 out of the total 409 suspected ivory items found on UK websites. Most examples on eBay.co.uk used code words which would appear to be a deliberate attempt by sellers to disguise the true nature of their sales and to circumvent eBay’s ivory ban. This is likely due to the fact that ebay.co.uk has invested significant efforts in preventing ivory sales, such as restricting the use of certain keywords and euphemisms for ivory, making it more difficult for potential buyers to find these listings.

21. While the number of potential ivory listings has increased since 2009, eBay.co.uk’s measures have resulted in a lower number of successful transactions and overall bids on those items. Other ivory and suspected ivory advertisements were found on uk.ebid.net, with 13 carvings and jewellery for sale, despite a more explicit site policy banning animal ivory having been put in place since the 2008 survey. None of the sellers on uk.ebid.net disguised the fact that they were selling ivory. A number of sellers on eBay had multiple items for sale, with one seller posting 58 ivory and suspected ivory items on the site during the six-week investigation.

22. Clause 46, subsection 11a would also need to be amended to include ‘unauthorised acts causing, or creating risk of, serious damage to animal welfare etc’.

Conclusion

23. There is clear evidence to support the inclusion of wildlife cybercrime measures within these provisions, which are to apply to UK nationals regardless of any international context surrounding the crime. We call upon the Government to:

· Include provisions tackling the wildlife cybercrime within the Bill

· Introduce a criminal offence for those advertising a CITES Appx. I or II animal, or its parts, without citing a valid permit number

· Require online marketplaces to alert users searching for, or selling, these products, that they may be illegal

· Commit to long-term funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit and the reinstatement of a dedicated post for wildlife cybercrime.

January 2015