TRAFFIC MALAYSIA’S INVISIBLE IVORYR E P O R T

CHANNELAn assessment of ivory seizures involving
Malaysia from January 2003 - May 2014
SEPTEMBER 2016

Kanitha Krishnasamy

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 20141

TRAFFIC REPORTTRAFFIC, the wild­life trade monitoringnet­work, is the leading non-governmentalorganization working globally on trade inwild animals and plants in the context of bothbiodiversity conservation and sustainable
development. TRAFFIC is a strategic alliance ofWWF and IUCN.
Reprod­uction of material appearing in thisreport requires written­permission fromthe publisher.
The designations of geographical entities inthis publication, and the presentation of thematerial, do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of TRAFFIC
or its supporting ­organizations con­cern­ing
the legal status of any country, territory, or
area, or of its authorities, or concerning thedelimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The views of the authors expressed in thispublication are those of the writers and do notnecessarily reflect those of TRAFFIC,
WWF or IUCN.
Published by TRAFFIC.
Southeast Asia Regional Office
Unit 3-2, 1st Floor, Jalan SS23/11
Taman SEA, 47400 Petaling Jaya
Selangor, Malaysia
Telephone : (603) 7880 3940
Fax : (603) 7882 0171
Copyright of material published in this report
is vested in TRAFFIC.
© TRAFFIC 2016.
ISBN no: 978-983-3393-52-7
UK Registered Charity No. 1076722.
Suggested citation: Krishnasamy, K. (2016).
Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessmentof ivory seizures involving Malaysia fromJanuary 2003-May 2014. TRAFFIC, Southeast
Asia Regional Office, Petaling Jaya, Selangor,
Malaysia.
Front cover photograph: Seizure of ivory in2011 in Malaysia
Credit: Kanitha Krishnasamy/TRAFFICMALAYSIA’S INVISIBLE IVORYCHANNELAn assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia fromJanuary 2003 - May 2014

©Kanitha Krishnasamy/TRAFFIC

Kanitha Krishnasamy

Seizure of ivory in 2011 in Malaysia

4

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

T ABLE OF CON T E N T S
Executive Summaryv

Introduction

1

Methods

9

Analysis and Discussion
Malaysia’s role
Seizures made in Malaysia
Seizures made outside Malaysia
Origins and destination of seizures madeoutside Malaysia
Seaports and Airports

10
11
13
16
16

Conclusion

20

References

23

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

ii

LI S TS O F T A BL E S A N D F I GUR E S
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8

Summary statistics for the ETIS cluster analysis groups, 2009–2011
Timeline of notable incidents
Summary evaluation of Malaysia’s progress towards actions in its National Ivory
Action Plan
Summary of seizure data implicating Malaysia from 2003–2014
Summary of seizures made prior to reaching Malaysia and after passing
Malaysia, 2003–2014
Total weight of ivory seized in 17 exports originating from Kenya, Tanzania andUgandaLarge-scale seizures involving reported country of destination
Ivory seizures at airports, implicating Malaysia

List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Illustration of ivory trade patterns involving Malaysia from 2009–2011
Trade routes for large-scale (>500 kg) seizures of ivory from 2000–2008
Trade routes for large-scale (>500 kg) seizures of ivory from 2009-2011
Trade routes for large-scale (>500 kg) seizures of ivory from 2012–2013
Malaysia’s role in the global ivory trade
Comparison of number of seizures and volume of seized ivory from within andoutside Malaysia
Figure 7 Timeline showing ivory seizures in Malaysia from 2003–2014
Figure 8 Comparison between seizures occurring before and after 2009
Figure 9 Seizures of ivory made outside Malaysia but where Malaysia was part of the
trade chain, by weight and year
Figure 10 Volume of ivory seized by other countries/territories where Malaysia is
implicated, from 2003–2014
Figure 11 Countries/territories that made large-scale seizures implicating Malaysia from2003–2014 and the total weight seized (kg)Figure 12 Peninsular Malaysia’s seaports and the three ports in which ivory seizures tookplace

iii TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to colleagues at TRAFFIC in Southeast Asia, in particular Chris Shepherd, Sarah Stoner,and Elizabeth John for feedback and review of this report. Aqeela Abdul Jalil is thanked for her
patience in report layout and designing the infographics and maps used in this report. Tom Milliken
is thanked for providing very useful comments. Richard Thomas, Sabri Zain and Louisa Sangalakulafrom TRAFFIC are also thanked. The author is grateful to the Department of Wildlife and National
Parks Peninsular Malaysia and the Royal Malaysian Customs for generously providing information
on seizures and law enforcement.
The British High Commission in Malaysia generously supported this study. The author also thanks
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services for supporting some of the time leading to the production of thiswork.

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Malaysia does not have an open domestic ivory market, unlike at least seven other Southeast Asian
countries. However, its position in the global illicit ivory trade has become more prominent since2009 when its role as a principal transit gateway for ivory en route to consumer markets in other
Southeast and East Asian countries emerged. This occurrence has made Malaysia the world’s
paramount illicit ivory transit country, according to data in the Elephant Trade Information
System (ETIS), which tracks ivory seizures globally since 1989. The ETIS report to the 62nd CITESStanding Committee meeting in July 2012 identified Malaysia as one of eight countries most heavily
implicated in the illegal ivory trade chain. Malaysia was the only country that served as purely atransit country among this group of African source and Asian end-use nations.
To better understand this trade dynamic, TRAFFIC assessed information from ivory seizuresfrom a period of over 11 years (nearly 11 and a half years), from January 2003 to May 2014—all
seizures were either made by Malaysian authorities, or made outside the country, but with Malaysia
identified as part of the trade chain. Findings highlight that a total of 66 ivory seizures have beenconnected to Malaysia, cumulatively recording 63 419 kg of ivory over this period. Although only
26 of all seizures were large-scale seizures (>500 kg), these alone logged in a total weight of
60 404 kg, accounting for 95% of the total volume seized. This report discusses some insights fromthe seizures over this period, as well as highlighting needs and opportunities in order for Malaysia
to remove itself from its current position as a country of international concern for illicit trade inivory under CITES.
For its part, Malaysia has made a total of 19 seizures from January 2003–February 2013 totalling
close to 15 tonnes of ivory. Five of these, representing 94% of total volume seized in the country,
were large-scale seizures, one of which represents the third largest seizure in ETIS. The large-scale
seizures in Malaysia occurred in all three of the nation’s leading seaports: Ports of Klang, Pasir
Gudang and Penang.
However, based on seizures made outside Malaysia during the assessed period, Malaysia has been
implicated in at least 47 other seizures, involving more than 48 tonnes of ivory that had alreadypassed through a Malaysian port undetected or was destined for the country. A vast majority ofthese were raw ivory, with only a small proportion being worked ivory that had already passed
through a Malaysian port undetected or was destined for the country. This occurrence is theprimary reason Malaysia has been identified as a key transit country in the global ivory trade. These
seizures involve the import, export and re-export of ivory (and other prohibited wildlife parts) fromat least 23 known countries and territories around the world, at various points of the trade route.
Almost 75% (n=35) of these 47 seizures were made by other countries after the shipment passed a
Malaysian port unstopped, amounting to 33 889 kg of ivory. Seventeen of the 47 seizures originatedfrom Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda—the three major exit points for the world’s illegal elephant ivory
trade. These three countries alone exported 66% (31 868 kg) of the total volume of ivory seized
during this period involving Malaysia, with Kenya and Tanzania each moving more than 13 tonnesof ivory. Tanzania’s role in moving large quantities of ivory through Malaysia has been documented
since at least 2003, while the other two became more prominent since 2010.
From all the seizures involving Malaysia as a transit or destination country, 16 437 kg of ivory from
13 seizures occurred in 2013 alone—the highest annual record over the 12-year period. Seven ofthese 13 seizures took place in the month of October, amounting to more than 8000 kg of ivory. At
least 23 rhino horns were also trafficked along with the ivory between August 2010 and December
2013, with 15 horns seized in a single shipment from Uganda. In two of these shipments involving
20 rhino horns from Kenya and Uganda, Malaysia was listed as the country of destination.

v

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

Outside this study period, between April 2015 and August 2015, four other seizures by Australia,
Kenya, Thailand and Viet Nam have been reported. These involved more than 5 tonnes of ivorythat had either passed through Malaysia or listed Malaysia as the country of destination. Suchoccurrences serve to reinforce that Malaysian ports continue to be used to move large quantities
of ivory, and more concerning, appears to becoming more frequent at a time when the poachingof African Elephants is at its most critical level. Not a single arrest or prosecution occurred withrespect to any Malaysian ivory seizure during the assessed period. However two prosecutions
occurred in 2015, outside the assessed period.
Malaysia’s geographical proximity to the world’s major ivory consumers—China and Thailand—andits efficient and well-developed port infrastructure, which ranks amongst the world’s most elite
ports, are important factors behind the country being used to smuggle ivory repeatedly. Although
the sheer quantity, volume and speed of cargo moving through Malaysia’s major seaports involving
tens of millions of containers each year makes the detection of illicit ivory shipments extremely
challenging, it is not an insurmountable task. Collaborative action, including risk profiling andtargeting, as well as timely communication between source and consumer countries have alreadyresulted in a number of successful seizures globally, and indeed forms part of Malaysia’s National
Ivory Action Plan that was submitted to CITES pursuant to the recommendations of the CITESStanding Committee. Such measures must continue, conducted in tandem with other essential
actions, without which Malaysia will continue to be a prominent player in the illegal ivory trade.
Intelligence-led investigations, collaborative action and timely communication between source
and consumer countries have already proven positive results in a number of cases globally. This
must be enhanced in Malaysia. Malaysia was listed as country of export in at least two large-scale
seizures made by Viet Nam, while a further six seizures that took place from 2010 to 2013 reported
Malaysia as the country of destination. As Malaysia does not possess a domestic ivory market, thisis likely a case of cargo being offloaded in Malaysia and then re-exported to disguise the fact thatthe cargo originated in Africa. Such cases suggest that criminal operatives believe that they can
successfully evade control mechanisms in Malaysia and addressing this issue should be a priority forgovernment authorities at both air and seaports. Given that smuggling across continents involves
organized criminality, risk indicators and profiling are crucial, and are currently being employedby the Royal Malaysian Customs to detect high-risk shipments at both seaports and airports, thelatter of which are increasingly being used, globally, to smuggle ivory. At least four of the known
confiscations in Malaysia were made at airports.
In 2015, Malaysian authorities recorded at least two arrests (involving three individuals) andconvictions involving ivory seizures made at one of the country’s international airports, Kuala
Lumpur International Airport (KLIA). Offenders were penalised a cumulative fine of
USD100 860. Additionally, the Royal Malaysian Customs made two seizures in February 2016,
seizing 159 kg of ivory and arrested two Vietnamese nationals; investigations are ongoing. Morerecently, in July 2016, Malaysian Customs seized a shipment of ivory from the Democratic Republicof Congo weighing just over 1000 kg. Efforts that led to these arrests must be bolstered, conductedconcurrently with other actions identified earlier including the implementation and maintenanceof a stockpile management system and DNA forensic analysis through partnerships withcapable laboratories, to determine the provenance of smuggled ivory. Malaysia does not have adomestic ivory market like others in the region. Therefore, its prospect of removing itself from thecurrent position on the global stage of the illegal ivory trade is possibly easier compared to the otherexport and consumer countries, but only if concerted effort is made to address wildlife trafficking
issues as they relate to a transit country.

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014vi

INTRODUCTION
The African Elephant Loxodonta africana is currently facing a crisis unlike anything witnessedsince the 1980s. A recent assessment of site-specific poaching data generated by the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) MIKE (Monitoring Illegal Killingof Elephants) programme estimated that 100 000 elephants had been killed throughout Africa over
the three-year period 2010–2012 (Wittemyer et al., 2014). Such killing follows a significant increasein the global ivory trade, largely fuelled by resurgent demand in Asia, especially China. As of 15
February 2016, over 22 000 ivory seizures have been recorded globally since 1989 in ETIS, with 2013
recording a record of over 65 tonnes of seized ivory (T. Milliken, pers, comm., 2016). Both Africanand Asian Elephants Elephas maximus are listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), with the exception of populationsof African Elephants from four countries (Bostwana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe).
Regardless of these CITES listings, all commercial international trade in elephant ivory has beenbanned since 1990 except under exceptional circumstances.
Malaysia became a Party to CITES in 1978. It has since passed strong laws to protect wildlife,
predominantly through the Wildlife Protection Act 2010 (WCA) for domestic wildlife protectionin Peninsular Malaysia. International wildlife trade is governed by the International Trade inEndangered Species Act 2008 (INTESA), Malaysia’s CITES-implementing legislation. Violation ofthese two laws, if convicted, carries a maximum fine of up to MYR500 000 (USD156 250) and MYR
one million (USD312 500), or up to five or seven years in jail, respectively. The Customs Prohibitionof Import and Export Orders 2012, which came into force in March 2013, aligns Malaysia’s CITES
Act with the provisions of the Customs Act. This legal development effectively empowers Customs
to control the import and export of wildlife.
Notably, the strongest legal framework to combat organized crime, including ivory trafficking
through Malaysia, was established in November 2014, when the government recognized violations
under the WCA and the INTESA as serious offences in the Second Schedule of the Anti-Money
Laundering and Anti-terrorism Financing Act (Amendment) 2014. This law carries a fine of
MYR Five million (almost USD1.6 million) or imprisonment of up to five years, upon conviction.
Offenders may also be convicted for attempting to engage in, or abetting the commission of, money
laundering, irrespective of whether there is a conviction for a serious offence or foreign serious
offence or that a prosecution has been initiated for the commission of a serious offence or foreign
serious offence. A “foreign serious offence” is an offence against the law of a foreign State issued
by, or on behalf of, the government of that foreign State. Despite strong legislation being in place
and an absence of a domestic ivory market, Malaysia became closely associated with global ivory
trafficking when the country was implicated in an ongoing suite of international ivory seizures.

The Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS)

The fifth major assessment of the ETIS data for the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties
to CITES (CITES CoP16) in 2013 underscored the significant role of Malaysia in the global ivory
trade. ETIS is a comprehensive CITES-mandated system, managed by TRAFFIC, that tracks
illegal trade in elephant specimens globally. The ETIS seizure data comprises the world’s largest
collection of law enforcement records on illegal trade in elephant products, holding data fromsome 100 countries or territories since 1989 (CITES, 2013). As of February 2016, there were 24
636 seizures recorded in ETIS, of which 22 287 records represented ivory seizures, whilst theremainder comprised non-ivory elephant products (T. Milliken, pers. comm., 2016). ETIS not only
records seizure information that is verified by governments, but the system is also able to analyse
law enforcement effort, drivers of illegal trade and assess trends and changes in the levels of illegal
trade in ivory over time. Due to the covert nature in which trafficking occurs, the raw seizure data
1

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

are not representative of the true magnitude of the illegal trade in ivory as much of the trade goes
undetected or is unreported to ETIS. However, ETIS analyses are based on bias-adjusted data that
correct for varying rates of seizure and rates of reporting between and within countries over time.
This is done to provide relative smoothed trends that are a reliable picture of the scale of ivory
trafficking and highlight those countries that are most implicated in the illicit trade chains behind
the greatest volumes of ivory involved. Analysis of seizure data therefore provides a credible basis
for assessing trade in elephant parts and products for any country in the world, including Malaysia.
An excerpt of the 2013 ETIS analysis and the role of primary countries of concern facilitating illegal
ivory trade in the region, including Malaysia, is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary statistics for the ETIS cluster analysis groups, 2009–2011
Frequency

Countries or
Territories

Scale

Law Enforcement Organized Crime(LE) Effort
Efficiency

Mean no. of Mean weight (kg) Mean LE ratio
seizures(from 0.00: no LE
effort, to 1.00: best
LE effort)

Percentage of large-scaleivory seizures to mean
eight

TH

53

10,9230.23

0.77

MY, PH, VN

26

16,023

0.25

0.94

CN

2,008

28,8040.65

0.65(high values indicate
organized criminality)

Source: CITES 2013
Legend: CN (China); MY (Malaysia); PH (Philippines); TH (Thailand); VN (Viet Nam);

Using an analytical technique called cluster analysis, which groups countries that share similar
characteristics in terms of their involvement in illicit ivory trade, three Southeast Asian countries—
Malaysia, the Philippines and Viet Nam—together formed a distinctive cluster in the ETIS analysis
to CITES CoP 16 (Table 1). These countries formed a group of “primary concern”, in that although
the number of seizures was relatively small, they collectively were part of trade chains throughwhich the second largest flow of illicit ivory moved. As large-scale movements of ivory are thehallmark of higher levels of crime, the ivory trade in these countries displayed the highest values
for the presence of organized crime. With no domestic ivory market of its own, Malaysia is uniqueamongst this group as being a country exclusively facilitating the transit of ivory, with the majorityof shipments being seized en route to, or having already passed through the country.
Organized criminal operatives are known for changing and adapting trade routes and methods
to circumvent detection, and beginning in 2009, an increasing number of ivory shipments
were observed to be routed through Southeast Asia, particularly Malaysia. It was at this timethat Malaysia’s role in this trade was first identified (Milliken et al., 2009; Milliken et al., 2013).
Shipments originating from the Tanzanian ports of Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar, for example, were
initially directed to Malaysia and two other countries as the principal transit country (Blanc et al.,2013). Trade out of Kenya also developed during this period with multiple shipments transiting
Malaysia and then moving on to Viet Nam, Cambodia, Thailand and China (Figure 1).

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 20142

Figure 1: Illustration of ivory trade patterns involving Malaysia from 2009–2011

Source: TRAFFIC©Kanitha Krishnasamy/TRAFFIC

Seizure data show that Malaysia progressively became the principal transit gateway, from where
African-sourced ivory was then redirected elsewhere in the region, particularly to Viet Nam, Hong
Kong and China. When compared to trade patterns observed in the period 2000–2008, this appears
to represent a change in smuggling routes when Malaysia’s role in the trade was minimal. Figures 2,
3 and 4 provide an illustration of the trend in ivory trafficking during three notable periods, giving
emphasis to the role Malaysia plays.

Seizure of 492 tusks in Port Klang, Malaysia in January 2012

3

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

4

Figure 2: Trade routes for large-scale (>500 kg) seizures of ivory from 2000–2008

Source: Adapted from CITES, IUCN and TRAFFIC, 2013.

5

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

Figure 3: Trade routes for large-scale (>500 kg) seizures of ivory from 2009–2011

Source: Adapted from CITES, IUCN and TRAFFIC, 2013.

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

6

Figure 4: Trade routes for large-scale (>500 kg) seizures of ivory from 2012–2013

Source: Adapted from CITES, IUCN and TRAFFIC, 2013.

Since 2009, a series of other occurrences has drawn attention to Malaysia’s position in the global
ivory trade (Table 2). Following the 62nd meeting of the CITES Standing Committee in July 2012,
nine countries and territories most heavily implicated in illegal ivory trade, were asked to submit
written reports to the CITES Secretariat on their implementation of CITES requirements for ivory
trade before 1 January 2013 (CITES, 2016; Milliken, 2013). This includes Hong Kong as a Special
Administrative Region of China which implements CITES separately from mainland China. Thesenine countries and territories comprise principal end-use markets (China and Thailand), export
countries (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) and transit countries/territories (Malaysia, Hong Kong,
the Philippines and Viet Nam). Of the four transit countries/territories, Malaysia is the only one
without a domestic ivory market or a history of ivory manufacturing. Malaysia, Viet Nam andTanzania did not submit the required written report in accordance with the deadline, while thePhilippines, Uganda and Kenya only produced reports and letters shortly before the commencementof the CITES CoP16 in March 2013. The lack of urgent response from the world’s most significant
ivory trading countries did not go unnoticed and served to support the introduction of a higher
degree of accountability. Subsequent deliberations at CITES CoP16 (particularly at the 63rd and 64th
meetings of the CITES Standing Committee) and the push for stronger measures by those heavily
implicated in this trade resulted in an unprecedented decision: the eight countries plus Hong Kong
were mandated to submit National Ivory Action Plans that included time-bound commitments toaddress and resolve serious issues which facilitated illicit trade in ivory.
Table 2: Timeline of notable incidents

7

When

Summary of incidents

2009

Malaysia’s transit role in the illegal ivory trade highlighted in the ETIS report to CITES
CoP15 (13–25 March 2010).

Jul 2012

62nd Standing Committee meeting (23–27 July 2012); countries and territories identified
as involved in substantial illegal ivory trade as a source, transit or destination country
were requested to submit written reports before Jan 2013 on their implementation of
Resolution Conf. 10.10 requirements for ivory trade for consideration by the Standing
Committee.

Nov 2012

CITES Secretariat wrote to the countries concerned, reminding them of therecommendations of the Standing Committee and inviting them to submit their written
reports.

Nov 2012

CITES Secretariat invited the Permanent Missions of the eight Parties in Geneva to a
special briefing on the issue; Malaysia was a participant.

Jan 2013

Malaysia did not submit its ivory trade report by the deadline for the submission of
documents for consideration by the Standing Committee at its 63rd meeting (i.e. 1 January2013) as requested at the 62nd Standing Committee meeting.

Mar 2013

Malaysia and three other countries were asked at the 63rd meeting of the Standing
Committee (2 March 2013) to provide a verbal update concerning their ivory tradecontrols as well as an explanation for not submitting the requested report by the agreed
deadline. Malaysia was also identified as a “country of primary concern” in the ETIS
analysis that was presented at CoP16.

Mar 2013

The 64th meeting of the Standing Committee (14 March 2013) mandated Malaysia andnine other countries and territories to submit detailed National Ivory Action Plans before
July 2013.

May 2013

Malaysia submits a National Ivory Action Plan to the CITES Secretariat.

Jul 2014

All National Ivory Action Plans were presented and assessed at the 65th meeting of
the CITES Standing Committee (7–11 July 2014) and all relevant Parties were urged tocontinue implementation process.

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

Progress on the actions taken by the nine countries and territories against their National Ivory
Action Plans was assessed at the 65th meeting of the Standing Committee in July 2014, which
outlined a wide range of measures and activities. The CITES Secretariat’s evaluation of thenine National Ivory Action Plans indicated that over 65% of the actions (80 of 121) were either“substantially achieved” or were “on track” for achievement (CITES, 2014b). The CITES Secretariat
further noted that “particular progress” had been made by Malaysia on a number of actions, with
progress on a number of others being unclear (CITES, 2014). A summary evaluation of Malaysia’s
progress on its Action Plan is provided in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary evaluation of Malaysia’s progress towards actions in its National Ivory Action
Plan
Category
Substantiallyachieved
1. Legislation andregulations

1.1 Capacity
building for ivory
identification andother techniques.

2. National-level
enforcement action,
investigation andinter-agency co-ordination

2.2 Enforcement
activity at entry andexit points

On track

Challenging

Unclear

2.1 Local
interagency
collaboration

3. International
enforcement
collaboration

3.1 Regional
collaborations
3.2 International
collaborations

4. Outreach, publicawareness andeducation

4.1 International
demand reduction
campaign

5. Additional
priority activities

5.2 Wildlife
enforcement
capacity building
5.4 Stockpile
management

4.2 Publicawareness- raising
activities
5.4 Ivory
Identification

5.1 Forensic
technology
5.3 Additional
investigation tools

Source: CITES, 2014

This paper provides an overview of ivory seizures involving Malaysia, underlining its role in
the global ivory trade. The analysis of seizure data is discussed below, highlighting needs andopportunities in order for Malaysia to remove itself from its current position as a country ofinternational concern for ivory trade under CITES.

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

8

METHODS
Information on ivory seizures made by Malaysian authorities, as well as seizures made outside
the country which implicate Malaysia in the trade chain over an 11-year period from 1 January
2003–30 May 2014, have been compiled and considered in this analysis. Seizure data were gatheredprimarily from open source articles published by the media on government actions, government
records, as well as peer-reviewed reports. Efforts were taken to verify media reports (with therelevant law enforcement agencies, including Royal Malaysian Customs). Information on seizures
included date of seizure, countries involved, location of seizure, type of ivory item seized (rawtusks or worked ivory), the weight and number of ivory items seized—all of which allowed for data
analysis. It is assumed that seizures analysed herein represent only a proportion of the actuality ofillegal trade as not all illegal trade is intercepted and/or reported.
Both Hong Kong and Taiwan are treated independently in this analysis, consistent in the manner
they are treated in the ETIS analysis to CITES CoPs. Seizures of 500 kg of ivory or more have beenrecognized by CITES as “large-scale ivory seizures”, which are indicative of organized criminality.
Where weight information from seizures was not recorded, a notional 1 kg is used to enable aminimum weight to be accounted for in the analysis. Information, such as locations of seizures,
routes used and other such trends are analysed here, and reasons why Malaysia was used as a transit
point in this illicit trade are explored.

©Kanitha Krishnasamy/TRAFFIC

A conversion rate of USD1 to MYR3.2 is used as at May 2014 (https://www.oanda.com/currency/
converter/)

Ivory seized in Port Klang in 2011

9

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Malaysia’s role

During the 11-year period assessed by this report, smugglers have increasingly used Malaysian
ports to move illicit ivory shipments to consumer markets. This conclusion is based upon either:i) seizures made in Malaysia, ii): shipments that have passed through Malaysian ports undetected,
both by air and sea, or iii): shipments destined for the country based on shipment documentation.
As a result, Malaysia has found itself firmly on the global map of ivory trade as a major transit hub,with a total of 66 illicit shipments being linked to the country during the assessed period, totalling
64 419 kg of ivory (Table 4). Of these, 27 cases were large-scale seizures of more than 500 kg, with a
total weight recorded of 61 085 kg, or 96% of the total volume seized. Figure 5 illustrates Malaysia’srole in this trade.
Figure 5: Malaysia’s role in the global ivory trade

Source: TRAFFIC

Table 4 provides a summary of the number of seizures and weight of ivory seized from 2003–2014
implicating Malaysia. At least 70% of these seizures, involving a correspondingly high quantityof seized ivory occurred outside Malaysia (Figure 5). This represents more than three times
the amount of ivory that was intercepted in Malaysia. This is the primary reason Malaysia washighlighted as the world’s foremost transit gateway for illicit ivory. Over the 2003–2014 period,a total of 335 604 kg of ivory has been seized globally (ETIS, 25 January 2016; T. Milliken, pers.
Comm., 2016). The weight of ivory seized involving Malaysia alone therefore represents 19% of thetotal weight of ivory seized globally.

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 201410

Table 4: Summary of seizure data implicating Malaysia from 2003–2014
Total number of
seizuresTotal weight(kg)

No of large-scale(>500 kg) ivory
seizuresWeight of largescale (>500 kg) ivory
seizures

Within Malaysia

19

14 9485

14 082

Outside Malaysia

47

48 47121

46 322*

Total

66

63 41926

60 404* A breakdown of seizures made before reaching Malaysia, and after passing Malaysia is provided in Table 5

Figure 6: Comparison of number of seizures and volume of seized ivory from within andoutside Malaysia

29%

23%
No of seizures in
Malaysia
No of seizures outside
Malaysia

71%

77%

kg)
Weight of large-scale (>500(>500kg)
ivory seizures in Malaysia

kg)
Weight of large-scale (>500(>500kg)
ivory seizures outside
Malaysia

Apart from the significance of the quantity of ivory seizures, in three of the 46 shipments, at least
23 rhino horns were trafficked along with the ivory. These shipments originated from Uganda
in December 2013 (15 rhino horns), Nigeria in February 2011 (three rhino horns) and Kenya in
August 2010 (five rhino horns). The shipments from Kenya and Uganda listed Malaysia as the end
destination, while the Nigerian shipment was headed to Thailand. In a separate shipment from
Uganda, pangolin scales were also found. Large-scale ivory shipments are also being mixed withquantities of rhino horns, alongside other protected wildlife such as pangolins. Only 10 suspects
were reportedly arrested in connection with the ivory seizures described in this report, and none of
the arrests occurred in Southeast Asia:•
Two Chinese nationals and two Guinean nationals were arrested in Uganda in 2013.
•
A Chinese national was arrested at Harare International Airport in Zimbabwe in 2013.
•
Three men were arrested on two occasions in Hong Kong in 2010 and 2011.
•
Two suspects were arrested in Kenya in 2010.

Seizures made in Malaysia

From January 2003–February 2014, Malaysia made 19 ivory seizures, totalling almost 15 tonnes
that originated from three countries: Kenya, Tanzania and Togo (Figure 7). Five of these werelarge-scale consignments of over 500 kg each. The most recent of all large-scale seizures in Malaysia
occurred in December 2012, weighing 6043 kg and comprising 2341 pieces of tusks. This shipment
originated from Togo and represents the third largest seizure ever recorded in ETIS.

11 TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

Source: TRAFFIC

Figure 7: Timeline showing ivory seizures in Malaysia from 2003–2014
TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 201412©Elizabeth John/TRAFFIC

Port Klang Customs makes Malaysia’s largest ivory seizure in December 2012, arriving from Togo

Seizures made outside Malaysia

The primary reason Malaysia has emerged as the world’s paramount transit gateway for illicit ivoryis the number of large-scale ivory seizures that use the country as part of an illicit pathway fromAfrica to Asian end-use markets. Malaysia’s role in this trade chain first emerged in 2006, but grew
to be more prominent in 2009. An examination of seizure records since 2009, compared to those ofprevious years, emphasises the increasing degree of Malaysia’s involvement as a transit country inthis trade (Figure 8). Over 93% of seizures that implicate Malaysia over this period (44 of 47) haveoccurred since the beginning of 2009, attesting to Malaysia’s prominent position as a transit country
in the trade in recent years. Forty percent of these 44 seizures and, more worryingly, 80% of thetotal weight seized were from large-scale ivory seizures, indicating the involvement of organizedcriminal networks. No seizures were reported between August 2006 and December 2008.
Figure 8: Comparison between seizures occurring before and after 2009
Weight (kg)
45000
No of
seizures:
44

40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000

No of
seizures:
7752
3

5000
0
Year 2003 -2006

Year 2009 -2014

Figure 8 provides a more detailed illustration on the scale of seizures that have occurred annuallyoutside Malaysia from 2003–2014 and clearly shows the increased frequency of Malaysia’s
involvement in the global ivory trade. Within this period, a total of 47 seizures took place, totalling
48 471 kg, involving at least 23 countries. Half of these were large-scale ivory seizures, eachweighing between 769 kg–5647 kg. The highest number of seizures (13) occurred in 2013, withsix of these occurring in a single month (October) (Figure 9). This trend reinforces the fact that
Malaysia remains a major port of call for smuggled ivory. Six of the 13 seizures in 2013 werelarge-scale, with four of these occurring in October; Viet Nam made two of these seizures withina span of five days, totalling over 4000 kg of ivory. The high quantitiesof ivory seized with such
frequency is alarming and certainly suggests organized criminal involvement.

13 TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

Figure 9: Seizures of ivory made outside Malaysia but where Malaysia was part of the tradechain, by weight and year
No of Seizures

Volume of seizures (kg)
18000

14

16000

12

14000
10

12000
10000

8

8000

6

6000

4

4000
2

2000
0
Total min weight of seized ivory (kg)
Total no of seizures by year

2003

2006

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

1932

5820

6652.926

5301

4825.112

4495

16436.75

3008

1

2

6

11

7

6

13

1

0

Of the 47 seizures made outside Malaysia, 10 were made at the point of export by four African
nations (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe), including six that took place in 2013 alone.
Kenya and Uganda made a total of four seizures each. Six of the 10 seizures were large-scale (eachseizure weighing between 1470–3200 kg). With the exception of the US seizing one piece of worked
ivory that was being shipped to Malaysia, the remaining 35 seizures were made by other transit or
end-use destinations, after having passed through Malaysia. Of significance is the fact that 74% of
the seizures were made by other countries after the ivory shipments passed a Malaysian port
(Table 5). Of these, although only 15 seizures were large-scale, the high volume of over 70%(of the total weight of large-scale seizure) is concerning. Fourteen of the seizures made after passing
Malaysia involved small items of worked ivory.
Table 5: Summary of seizures made prior to reaching Malaysia and after passing Malaysia,
2003-2014
Total
numberofseizures

% of
total
numberofseizuresTotal
weightseized(kg)% of total
weightseized (kg)No of largescale(>500 kg)ivory
seizuresWeight oflarge-scale(>500 kg)
ivory seizures%
Weight oflarge-scale(>500 kg)ivory
seizures

Beforereaching
Malaysia

1226

14 58230

6

13 22329

Afterpassing
Malaysia

3574

33 88970

15

39 099

71

Total

47

100

48 471100

21

46 322

100

Hong Kong made the most number of seizures of ivory that had already passed through Malaysia,
followed by Australia and China, although the seizures by the latter two countries were minor
quantities of worked ivory (Figure 10). Therefore, a high number of seizures does not always
correspond with high levels of organized criminality, but includes elements of consumer purchases.
For example, seizures made by Australia and China were personal effects of very small volumes

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 201414

(less than 5 kg), and therefore not directly comparable to the roles of countries or territories making
seizure of much higher volumes, like Hong Kong and Viet Nam—seizures made by these two werelarge-scale, signifying a higher degree of organized criminality.
Figure 10: Volume of ivory seized by other countries/territories where Malaysia is implicatedfrom2003–2014
(kg)
14000

12

12000

10

10000

8

8000
6
6000
4

4000

2

2000
0

HKCN
(CN)

VN

KE

UG

TWTW
(CN)

KH

JP
Weight

TZ

TH

AE

ZW

CN

AU

US

0

ID

No of seizures

Legend: AE (United Arab Emirates); AU (Australia); CN (China); HK (Hong Kong); ID (Indonesia); JP (Japan); KE (Kenya);
KH (Cambodia); TH (Thailand); TW (Taiwan); TZ (Tanzania); UG (Uganda); US (United States); VN (Viet Nam); ZW(Zimbabwe).

The weight of ivory seized by Hong Kong, Viet Nam, Kenya and Uganda unequivocally calls
attention to them being most closely associated with large-scale ivory shipments passing throughMalaysia. These four countries/territories, alongside five others, collectively made all the large-scale
seizures of ivory implicating Malaysia, reaching a total of 47 091 kg (Figure 11). By region, East
Asia made the highest number of seizures, recording a correspondingly high volume, followed bySoutheast Asia and Africa.

KE

UG

KH

JP

TZ

1026

T WTW
(CN)

1895

2794

VN

3008

H KHK
(CN)

3026

4945

7180

11328

13587

Figure 11: Countries/territories that made large-scale seizures implicating Malaysia from2003-2014, and the total weight seized (kg)TH

Legend: HK (Hong Kong) (China); JP (Japan); KE (Kenya); KH (Cambodia); TH (Thailand); TW (Taiwan); TZ (Tanzania);
UG (Uganda); VN (Viet Nam).

15 TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

Origins and destination of seizures made outside Malaysia

A total of 13 countries of origin or export were identified in the data. Surprisingly, Malaysia waslisted as the country of export in 15 seizures—although a majority of these were personal effects—
only two were large-scale seizures of over 2000 kg each; both made by Viet Nam at the Hai Phongport in 2013 within a five-day period. It is unknown if the ivory in all of these cases actually entered
Malaysia and was then re-exported to the country of destination, or if this is based upon informationfrom shipping documents only and Malaysia was simply the last port of call for the vessel carrying
the shipment. Seventeen of all seizures originated from Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. These threesource/export countries are also among the nine countries / territories of primary concern identified
by CITES. The quantity of ivory originating from these three African countries alone accounted for
66% of the total volume of ivory (31 868 kg of 48 471 kg) involving Malaysia that was seized outsideof the country during this period, with Kenya and Tanzania each moving more than 13 tonnes ofivory (Table 6). Six of these seizures, totalling 9523 kg of ivory, took place from 2010 to 2013 andreported Malaysia as the country of destination (import). All but two of these were large-scale
seizures, each recording a minimum of 1500 kg.
Table 6: Total weight of ivory seized in 17 exports originating from Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda
Country

Total minimum estimated weight (kg)Kenya

13 498

Tanzania

14 850Uganda

3520

Total

31 868

Information analysed during this period shows that the top three countries/territories listed as
destinations for ivory shipments were Malaysia, China and Hong Kong. These three countries/territories were listed in at least 29 shipments totalling 32 843 kg, with Malaysia contributing 14
532 kg in 10 shipments to this total. Sixteen of these were large-scale seizures (Table 7). There isno further information concerning whether this ivory was to be re-exported elsewhere, but reexportation is assumed in the case for Malaysia as there is no domestic ivory market or internal
ivory processing in the country.
Table 7: Large-scale seizures involving reported country of destination
Country/Territory

No of seizures

Weight (kg)% of weight

Malaysia6

13 22343

Hong Kong

6

9585

31

China

4

8013

26

Total

16

30 821100

Seaports and Airports

Large-scale seizures in Malaysia have occurred in all three of the nation’s leading seaports: Port Klang, Pasir
Gudang (in the southern State of Johor) and Penang (Figure 12). Port Klang made four seizures, of over 10
tonnes of ivory, while the ports of Pasir Gudang and Penang seized 2974 kg and 1586 kg of ivory respectively.
Over 72% (100 641 kg) of the large-scale ivory seizures recorded globally from 2009–2013 were shipped by sea(Milliken, 2014a).

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 201416

Figure 12: Peninsular Malaysia’s seaports and the three ports in which ivory seizures took
place

Source: TRAFFIC

Port Klang, where four of the six large-scale ivory seizures were made, is the main cargo gateway by
sea into Malaysia and is just some 40 km from the nation’s capital of Kuala Lumpur. First opened
on 15 September 1901 (known then as Port Swettenham), Port Klang is today in the top 12 of theworld’s leading ports (www.worldshipping.org). It handles some 11 million twenty-foot equivalent
unit (TEU) containers a year, joining the elite rank of ports throughout the world that operate in
the above 1 million TEUs league. Port Klang links with more than 500 ports worldwide, with tradeconnections to over 120 countries and territories. Its geographical location makes it the first portof call for ships on the eastbound leg and the last port of call on the westbound leg of the Far East–
Europe trade route (Port Klang Authority, 2012). The ports of Penang and Pasir Gudang (where theother Malaysian seizures were made) are also equipped to welcome larger vessels and handle greatvolumes of containers at a fast pace. Collectively, these three ports facilitate the movement of large
containers from around the globe in a timely and efficient manner.
Malaysia’s geographical position with respect to the world’s major ivory consumers, China andThailand, and efficient and well-developed port infrastructure is certainly a key reason why thecountry is used to smuggle ivory. The sheer quantity and speed of cargo moving through thesemajor seaports involves tens of millions of containers each year, making the detection of illicit ivory

17 TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

shipments extremely challenging. The large volume of ivory moving through Malaysia is testament
to the repeated exploitation of the country’s port facilities by criminal syndicates, perhaps because
Malaysia is viewed as a path that offers lower risk compared to other alternative ports in the region.
As mentioned, large transboundary movements of ivory across continents point to organizedcriminality involvement, an ivory trade dynamic that has increased especially over the past six years(Milliken et al., 2013).
Although a majority of large-scale seizures described in this report have occurred at seaports, eightsignificant seizures took place at five different airports, involving shipments that were on their way
to or through Malaysia (Table 8). While only three were large-scale seizures originating from Kenya,
Tanzania and Uganda (each weighing between 1500 kg to 2160 kg), it is clear that the use of airports
to smuggle large quantities of ivory through international borders is on the rise. Moving ivory inhand-carried or checked-in luggage is rising as air travel is becoming more frequent as a modus
operandi for ivory smuggling. For example, following a routine inspection in June 2014, Hong Kong
Customs arrested 16 passengers in transit from Angola with 790 kg of raw and worked ivory spread
between them in 32 pieces of check-in baggage (Milliken 2014b). This particular case (which did
not transit through Malaysia) was indicative of emerging alternatives to containerized shipping formoving large volumes of ivory. As smugglers are always adapting to circumstances, more vigilanceand collaborative law enforcement efforts with airport authorities is critical for preventing transit
trade through the country.
Table 8: Ivory seizures at airports, implicating Malaysia
WhenCountry/
Territory

AirportMin estimatedweight of ivory
(kg)

Notes

Dec 2013

UgandaEntebbeInternational
Airport1500

Ugandan Police seized raw and worked ivory
pieces, as well as 15 rhino horn pieces that wereon their way to Malaysia. A Nigerian company
was listed as consignee of the shipment.

Oct 2013

UgandaEntebbeInternational
Airport116

Ugandan Police seized raw ivory and pangolinscales. Four suspects were arrested, two Chinese
nationals and two Guinean nationals, who
confessed that the contraband was headed toChina via Malaysia.

Oct 2013

Zimbabwe

HarareInternational
Airport114

A Chinese man was arrested at Harare
International Airport in Zimbabwe carrying raw
and worked ivory while trying to board a flight
to Malaysia. (Note: There are no direct flights
to Malaysia from Zimbabwe, and therefore thesuspect’s route involved other countries)

Jan 2013

Dubai

Dubai
International
Airport447

Dubai Airports Security seized raw ivory tusks
and worked ivory products; Malaysia was listed
as the country of destination.

Oct 2012

Hong Kong

Hong Kong
International
Airport

1928

Hong Kong airport authorities seized raw tusks
and worked ivory products that passed througha Malaysian port

Sep 2012

Kenya

Jomo-Kenyatta
International
Airport255

Kenyan airport authorities intercepted ashipment of ivory declared as ‘avocados’. The
cargo was destined for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
aboard Qatar Airways via Doha.

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 201418

Jun 2012

UgandaEntebbeInternational
Airport426

Customs officials impounded raw ivory that was
destined for Malaysia, concealed inside fivemetallic suitcases.

Aug 2010

Kenya

Jomo-Kenyatta
International
Airport

2160

Sniffer dogs detected five rhino horns and raw
ivory that was bound for Malaysia. Two suspects
were arrested.

The Royal Malaysian Customs, in January 2015, reported increased vigilance at airports as they haveseen the emergence of ivory smuggling attempts through Malaysia since 2013 (Lim, 2015). As aresult, they arrested a Chinese national for smuggling 16 pieces of ivory who was later successfully
convicted and fined MYR250 000 (USD80 645) and given a jail term of two months. In February
2016, two ivory seizures, totalling 159 kg, were made by the Royal Malaysian Customs, fromflights that originated from Angola and Ethiopia (Nadirah, 2016). These two cases involved three
Vietnamese nationals, two of whom were arrested; these suspects had reportedly entered thecountry on three other occasions recently and both shipments involved an Ethiopian connection,according to ongoing investigations. More recently, in July 2016, the Royal Malaysian Customs
made its first large-scale seizure since 2011 at Kuala Lumpur International Airport, when ashipment of tusks from the Democratic Republic of Congo was seized, weighing just over 1000 kg(Bernama, 2016). This shipment arrived via a Turkish Airline Cargo from Kinshasha International
Airport, with a transit in Istanbul, Turkey.
Organized crime groups are known to utilize sophisticated smuggling techniques, often withdiscreet knowledge of the regulatory systems and procedures employed, coupled with targeted
corruption as a conduit, to move high-valued goods in an undetected, or at least unobstructed,
manner (UNODC, 2013; EIA, 2014). Criminal operatives seek out pathways that are deemed
to be safe enough to minimize risks and losses that would be suffered through seizures. It isbelieved that such operations fully consider law enforcement effort and performance, making
allowances for modifying the shipping channels of particular consignments as necessary; orusing less well-monitored routes. Successful shipping channels are believed to be repeatedly useduntil such time that circumstances change and modification of trade routes becomes a necessity,
the foremost reason being when enforcement effort is enhanced and shipments are intercepted,
criminal syndicates suffer losses. Good and consistent law enforcement performance is precisely
what Malaysia needs in order to cease being one of the countries of primary concern in the illicit
movement of ivory.
Large-scale consignments of ivory—anything from 500 kg to over 7000 kg—are the productof intricate webs of organized criminality involving high levels of financial, organizational andnetworking resources that enable illicit shipments to be transported across continents and seas
without obstruction. These webs give rise to the necessary resources that activate local poachingsyndicates in elephant range States, set up the consolidation hubs for amassing poached ivory andpreparing it for shipment to Asia, and organizing the transportation across continents and seas
to end-use destinations, all while evading interdiction. It is believed that currently, a significant
portion of these transnational syndicates involved in ivory trade function as Asian-run,
Africa-based operations (Milliken, 2014a).

19 TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

CONCLUSION
Priorities identified by Malaysia in its National Ivory Action Plan are relevant to and valid for
addressing the issues identified by this report. Efforts in terms of the “national-level enforcement
action, investigation and inter-agency coordination” and “international enforcement collaboration”
categories are perhaps the highest priorities as such actions would contribute towards scalingup law enforcement along the entire trade chain and deterring criminal syndicates from using
Malaysia as a transit country. While data on ivory shipments that have been detected moving inand out of Malaysia’s borders is available, the lack of complete information on the parties (such as
cargo exporters, consignees, handling agents and logistics companies) involved in these shipments
presents a challenge in enabling comprehensive assessments that could lead to the targeting ofbusinesses involved in ivory trafficking. This, however, marks the very piece of the puzzle that
requires further investigation.
The need for an intelligence-led approach is paramount for any attempt to eliminate the use of
Malaysian ports (both sea and air) as a facilitating link in this illicit trade. Only through multinational and multi-agency collaboration will the illicit ivory flow through Malaysia be disrupted.
Such approaches, when used, have been found to be effective. In 2011, authorities at Penang Port
received intelligence relating to two containers containing elephant tusks en route to Port Klang
before the ship arrived at Penang Port. Collaborative action and timely communication resulted
in the successful seizure of 675 elephant tusks. The tusks were hidden in 92 plastic bags, placedin the middle of a container, and surrounded by recycled crushed plastic. Similarly, intelligenceled collaborations have spurred successful investigations that stand behind a vast number of otherseizures that have occurred globally, including in China, the country with the world’s largest ivory
market.
ETIS data also highlight that the principal method of detection resulting in seizures of containerizedshipping through African ports has been intelligence-led information accounting for at least
one-third of seizures (Milliken, 2014). This clearly points to the invaluable need to cultivate
informant networks at the national level, while at the same time developing and enhancing
co-operation at regional and international levels.
Furthermore, identification of trade route patterns and the understanding of export and end-use
markets will allow for better detection through thoughtful risk profiling and targeting. Careful
and targeted intelligence-led law enforcement efforts are needed to arrest the criminals involved insmuggling operations. Due to Malaysia’s position as a leading transit country, it is believed that thecriminals behind the trade are not likely to enter Malaysia on a frequent basis but may work throughlocal handling agents. In this regard, Malaysia was listed as the country of export for two large-scale
seizures made by Viet Nam, suggesting that the cargo was offloaded in Malaysia before moving on
to Viet Nam; if so, the identity of the local agents who facilitated the trade should be apparent. In
another six seizure cases that took place from 2010 to 2013, Malaysia was identified as the countryof destination. As Malaysia does not possess a domestic ivory market, in these cases, the likelihoodof the illicit cargo being offloaded in Malaysia and then re-exported to disguise the fact that thecargo originated in Africa, cannot be discounted. Therefore, officials in the country must apply
risk indicators and profiling to eliminate potential exploitation of the control mechanisms in placeat its ports. More targeted identification or organized criminal operations through collaborative
relationships with source and destination/end-use countries will aid this process.
The strongest legal framework for fighting organized crime in the country (such as the syndicatesthat are behind the ivory trafficking through Malaysia) came into place in November 2014. The
Malaysian government recognized violations under the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 and the

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 201420

International Trade in Endangered Species Act 2008, such as the import and export of wildlife,
as serious offences under the Second Schedule of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism
Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amendment 2014). Several cases of
Malaysians involved in wildlife smuggling, including ivory, have been recorded. For example, inFebruary 2015, a Malaysian businessman was arrested in Bangkok, Thailand for smuggling 51 piecesof ivory, weighing 135 kg, demonstrating the direct involvement of Malaysians in the illicit trade(Lee, 2015). This law not only enables the government to take action against those violating laws
within the country, but also to initiate investigations against those conducting criminal activity
outside the country. This case, although the outcomes remain unknown, paved the way for law
enforcement collaboration between the Malaysian and Thai authorities to address ivory smuggling.
The utilization of the legal option with the Anti-Money Laundering Act must be expanded andincluded among the suite of actions employed by the Malaysian government to fight wildlife crime.
The role of the Malaysian Royal Customs is perhaps the most essential in addressing this issue.
The legal mechanisms already in place enable Customs officers to take more of a leadershiprole and empowers them to take strong action against illegal wildlife traders. Two key areas arebeing addressed by the Royal Malaysian Customs to improve performance in this regard. The
first is the U-Customs, a new system aimed at professionalizing how information is gathered,analysed, managed and utilized for the sole purpose of improving law enforcement by Customs.
The establishment of this system is ongoing and came into effect at the end of 2015. The second
issue concerns controlled delivery, which is an investigative tool and technique used (often in
drug trafficking cases) when consignments of illicit commodities are detected but then allowed
to proceed to the end destination under surveillance by law enforcement officers to understandunderlying dynamics of the trade better and to make arrests further up the trade chain. The
intention for such a course of action is to secure evidence against offenders and organizers of illicit
conduct. The execution of this law enforcement tactic necessarily involves the Attorney General’sChambers and other legal bodies in the country to ensure compliance with Malaysia’s national laws.
Participation in controlled deliveries was recommended by the CITES Secretariat (CITES, 2011;
United Nations, 2014) given that Malaysia is almost exclusively being used as a transit country, andsuch action is currently being considered by the Malaysian government.
On another front, a standardized stockpile management system, that considers the centralization,
marking, registration, storage and security aspects for large quantities of seized illicit goods,
is a critical need for Malaysia. In April 2016, the Malaysian government destroyed 9550 kg ofivory seized in the country from enforcement actions that took place between 2011 and 2015
(TRAFFIC, 2016). The government reported that the portion of stockpile destroyed was audited bya government committee which drew its membership from the Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironment, the National Audit Department, the Anti-Corruption Commission, Royal Malaysian
Customs and the DWNP. This lack of participation from bodies independent of the government in
the process is a weakness.
Last year, the DWNP participated in an ivory forensics DNA testing exercise for seized ivory, incollaboration with the U.S. government and selected African countries (NRE, 2016; Wasser et al.,2015). This collaboration forms a global effort that links countries of export, import and transit ofivory to facilitate partnerships in determining the source of smuggled ivory, assists with criminal
investigations in source countries and enables the development of improved protection measuresat ivory source countries. Further, the results of such efforts serve to guide and enable informed
decision-making for the protection of African Elephants including providing a general descriptionof where African Elephants were killed for their tusks. Findings from the forensic exercise of ivory
seized in Malaysia that was undertaken in 2014 for example, point to tusks originating from 11
countries (Central African Republic, Corte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Ghana,
Kenya, Mozambique, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia) (NRE, 2016).

21 TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

The report highlights some of the key countries involved in the movement of illegal ivory
shipments through Malaysia, both from Africa, and end-use destinations in East Asia. Links
with enforcement agencies in Africa and elsewhere in Asia, particularly end-use and other transit
countries (China, Viet Nam and Thailand) will be critical to disrupting operative trade chains.
Utilization of regional and international enforcement co-ordination with respective countries andterritories where seizures have been made (involving Malaysia) is critical. Where local businesses
and/or individuals are identified, further investigations should follow and arrests and prosecutions
pursued if jurisdictionally possible.
This analysis emphasises the prominent position of Malaysia as a transit gateway in the web ofivory smuggling. The need for an intelligence-led approach is crucial for any attempt to eliminate
the use of Malaysian ports in facilitating this trade, and to ensure that investigative efforts do notcease at the point of seizure, but instead are initiated along the entire trade chain. Government law
enforcement agencies must become proactive and globally collaborative if there is hope of putting
an end to the operations of organized crime groups. In fact, as Malaysia does not have a domestic
ivory market, its prospect in extracting itself from continuous incrimination in this global trade isperhaps easier compared to the other countries. A combination of targeted and decisive efforts atthe national level will be critical in achieving this goal. The challenge presents an overwhelming
task due to the volume of goods passing through Malaysian ports, but one that is truly achievable,
and indeed necessary to eradicate the use of Malaysian ports by smugglers to transport illicit ivory.

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 201422

REFERENCES
Anon. (2010). Ivory Seized in Airport Luggage. BBC News (UK). http://www.bbc.com/news/scienceenvironment-11421585. 27 September.
Anon. (2015a). Vietnam seizes elephant tusks, pangolin scales in large shipment from Malaysia. Than Nien
News (Viet Nam). http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/vietnam-seizes-elephant-tusks-pangolinscales-in-large-shipment-from-malaysia-50624.html. 26 August.
Anon. (2015b). Thailand seizes four tonnes of ivory in record bust. Aljazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/
news/2015/04/thailand-ivory-150421044938248.html. 21 April.
Australian Government. (2015). ACBPS officers seize 100kilograms of ivory in Perth. Australian Government
Department of Immigration and Border Protection. http://newsroom.border.gov.au/releases/acbpsofficers-seize-110-kilograms-of-ivory-in-perth.html. 9 April.
Bernama. (2016). KLIA Customs Foil Attempt to Smuggle Ivory Worth over RM10m. Bernama National
News Agency (Malaysia): 1 August. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/klia-customsfoils-attempt-to-smuggle-ivory-worth-over-rm10m.
Blanc, J., Burnham, K., Dublin, H., Milliken, T., Mwangi, P., Sangalakula, L., Skinner, D. and Underwood, F.
Status of African elephant populations and levels of illegal killing and the illegal trade in ivory: A report to
the African elephant Summit. December 2013. CITES, IUCN and TRAFFIC.
Carvalho, M., Rahimy, R., Cheah, C., Rahmah, G. and Dina, M. (2015). Govt Seeks to Clamp Down on Ivory
Smuggling. The Star (Malaysia). 20 March. http://m.thestar.com.my/story.aspx?hl=Govt+seeks+to+clamp+down+on+ivory+smuggling&sec=news&id=%7B1426E458-32B1-4C97-9462-988BECEC77E8%7D.
Christy, B. (2014). Togo makes second record ivory seizure. National Geographic. 3 February. http://voices.
nationalgeographic.com/2014/02/03/togo-makes-second-record-ivory-seizure/.html
CITES. (2011). Controlled deliveries: a tool for reaching the big players in illegal wildlife trafficking. CITES
Secretariat. Geneva, Switzerland. https://cites.org/eng/news/sundry/2011/20111219_cd_workshop.php. 19
December.
CITES, IUCN and TRAFFIC. (2013). Status of African elephant populations and levels of illegal killing andthe illegal trade in ivory: A report to the African Elephant Summit. https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/
african_elephant_summit_background_document_2013_en.pdf
CITES. (2013). Resolution Conf 10.10 (Rev CoP 16): Trade in elephant specimens. 16th meeting of theConference of the Parties, Bangkok (Thailand), 3-14 March 2013.
CITES (2014a). Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP16). Trade in Elephant Specimens. CITES Secretariat. G
Geneva land, Switzerland. http://www.cites.org/eng/res/10/10-10R16.php
CITES. (2014b). National Ivory Action Plans. SC65 Doc. 42.2., 65th Meeting of the Standing Committee,
Geneva, Switzerland, 7-11 July.
CITES. (2015). Monitoring the illegal trade in ivory (No. 2015/044). Geneva, Switzerland, 3 August.
https://cites.org/sites/default/files/notif/E-Notif-2015-044.pdf.
EIA (2014). In cold blood: Combating organised wildlife crime. Environmental Investigation Agency, London,
UK.
Lim, K. Y. (2015). The fate of seized ivory in Malaysia. The Star (Malaysia). http://www.thestar.com.my/lifestyle/features/2015/01/26/the-fate-of-seized-ivory-in-malaysia/. 26 January.
Lee, P. (2015). Malaysian arrested in Thailand for smuggling ivory worth RM 658k. The Star (Malaysia).
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/03/20/Malaysian-caught-Thailand-ivory-smuggling/. 20 March.
Milliken, T., Burn, R.W. and Sangalakula, L. (2009). The Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) and the
Illicit Trade in Ivory: A report to the 15th meeting of the Conference of Parties. CoP15 Doc. 44.1, Annex 1;
CITES, Gland, Switzerland.
Milliken, T. (2013). Progress in implementing the Elephant Trade Information System. Pachyderm No 53:
115-117.
Milliken, T., Burn, R.W., Underwood, F.M. and Sangalakula, L.F.M. (2013). The Elephant Trade Information
System (ETIS) and the Illicit Trade in Ivory: A report to the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties.
CoP16 Doc. 53.2.2 (Rev. 1); CITES, Gland, Switzerland.
Milliken, T. (2014a). Illegal Trade in Ivory and Rhino Horn: an Assessment Report to Improve Law Enforcement
Under the Wildlife TRAPS Project. USAID and TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK.
Nadirah H. Rodzi. (2016). Elephant Tusks Seized at KLIA. The Star (Malaysia). http://www.thestar.com.my/
news/nation/2016/03/03/elephant-tusks-seized-at-klia-three-vietnamese-men-on-transit-nabbed-atarrival-hall/.html. 3 March.

23 TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014

Nadirah H. Rodzi. (2016). Elephant Tusks Seized at KLIA. The Star (Malaysia). http://www.thestar.com.my/
news/nation/2016/03/03/elephant-tusks-seized-at-klia-three-vietnamese-men-on-transit-nabbed-atarrival-hall/.3 March.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE). (2014). Destruction of Seized Ivory in Malaysia. NREMedia Statement. http://www.wildlife.gov.my/images/stories/mutakhir/apr2016_gading/20160415173050.
pdf. 14 April.
Port Klang Authority, 2012: http://www.pka.gov.my/index.php/en/about-us-/port-klang-authority-/background-.html. Port Klang Authority. Selangor, Malaysia.
TRAFFIC. (2010). Thailand Customs seize four suitcases filled with ivory. TRAFFIC Press Release. http://
www.traffic.org/home/2010/9/27/thai-customs-seize-four-suitcases-filled-with-ivory.html
TRAFFIC. (2012). Massive African ivory seizure in Malaysia. TRAFFIC Press Release. http://www.traffic.
org/home/2012/12/11/massive-african-ivory-seizure-in-malaysia.html.11 December.
TRAFFIC. (2016). Vigilance Urged as Malaysia Destroys Huge Ivory Stockpile. TRAFFIC Press Release.
http://www.traffic.org/home/2016/4/14/vigilance-urged-as-malaysia-destroys-huge-ivory-stockpile.html.
14 April.
UNODC (2013) Transnational Organized Crime in East Asia and the Pacific: A Threat Assessment. United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna, Austria.
Yap. S. H. (2014). U-Customs beroperasi 1 Jan 2016. The Borneo Post (Malaysia). http://www.
theborneopost.com/2014/08/06/u-customs-beroperasi-1-jan-2016/ 6 August.
Wasser, S.K., Brown, L., Mailand, C., Mondol, S., Clark, W., Laurie, C. and Weir, B.S. (2015). Genetic
assignment of large seizures of elephant ivory reveals Africa’s major poaching hotspots. Science Vol.
349, Issue 6243, pp. 84-87. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa2457
Wittemyer, G., Northrup, J. M., Blanc, J., Douglas-Hamilton, I., Omondi, P. and Burnham, K. P. (2014).
Illegal killing for ivory drives global decline in African elephants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111,
13117–13121.

TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 201424

SEPTEMBER 2016

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network,is the leading non-governmental organization
working globally on trade in wild animals andplants in the context of both biodiversity
conservation and sustainable development.
For further information contact:
TRAFFICSoutheast Asia Regional Office
Unit 3-2, 1st Floor
Jalan SS23/11, Taman SEA
47400 Petaling Jaya
Selangor, Malaysia
Telephone: (603) 7880 3940
Fax : (603) 7882 0171
Website: www.traffic.org

UK Registered Charity No. 1076722,
Registered Limited Company No. 3785518.

is a strategic alliance of

25 TRAFFIC Report: Malaysia’s invisible ivory channel: An assessment of ivory seizures involving Malaysia from January 2003- May 2014