The Alicante County Court has upheld a fine issued to a man who sold frog specimens online, specifically the natterjack frog known scientifically as Bufo calamita. The ruling confirms an offense tied to wildlife protection and carries a penalty of 1,080 euros. The decision comes from the high court level within the Valencia region, reinforcing the seriousness of illegal wildlife trade penalties in the area.
The court’s decision, confirmed on 27 May by Criminal Court no. 3 in Alicante, also imposes a one year and eight month ban on the individual from raising or trading wild animals, hunting, or fishing. This sentence illustrates the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing wildlife protection laws against persons who profit from the sale of endangered or protected species.
Advertising website
Records indicate the events occurred in 2017, when autonomous police investigated as part of routine monitoring. Officers discovered that a seller offered Bufo calamita specimens on a website for 15 euros each. The discovery highlighted the ease with which protected species could be marketed through online platforms, underscoring the risk of shady online sales to wildlife populations.
Law enforcement seized 23 amphibians at the seller’s Alicante home on May 12 of that year, signaling a concerted effort to disrupt illicit trade in protected species. The case shows how authorities track sales activity and confiscate materials to prevent further harm to wildlife from profitable but illegal trades.
The court found that the defendant was aware that Bufo calamita is listed as a wild species under special protection and is included in the Spanish catalog of endangered species. This knowledge factored into the criminal court’s ruling, which was subsequently upheld by the higher court, reinforcing the penalties for those who knowingly break wildlife protection laws.
Claims denied
The court’s decision addresses the appellant’s challenges to the first-instance sentence. It confirms the facts presented by the prosecution and notes that the appeals offered by the defendant were largely generic and substantive in nature. The outcome reinforces the credibility of the initial verdict and the penalties handed down as appropriate given the circumstances.
In reviewing the case, the chamber also notes that the defendant’s online advertisements contained information about the species and its care. An expert familiar with Bufo calamita provided guidance that may have influenced the perception of the defendant’s intent and the overall handling of the situation in the ruling.
Overall, the decision demonstrates how courts evaluate cases involving the sale of protected wildlife online and the role of expert testimony in clarifying the nature of the species involved. It also underscores the importance of clear compliance with wildlife protection regulations for anyone engaged in breeding, selling, or handling protected animals.