
doi: 10.1002/wfs2.1376
AbstractIn the past decade, Hong Kong has seen an increase in volume and diversity of endangered wildlife imported through its borders. Recent amendments to legislation concerning wildlife crimes in Hong Kong allow for increased sentencing and prosecution of the crimes. This calls for an increased forensic capacity to aid enforcement efforts. Wildlife forensic science in Hong Kong is generally performed ad hoc via a confidential tender‐application process. Additionally, minimal communication between forensic scientists, the prosecution and the judiciary on the use and production of wildlife forensic analyses has compounded the problem of wildlife crimes not being addressed as “serious” crimes. Improving communication and collaboration between relevant stakeholders, including the development of a wildlife forensic reference database, shared forensic practices, and shared information concerning expertise and analyses available within Hong Kong, would provide benefits to wildlife crime investigations. This article addresses some of these concerns in more detail and provides suggestions for improvements to the overall wildlife forensic capacity in Hong Kong. Increasing Hong Kong's capacity for wildlife forensic science will not only facilitate law enforcement efforts but also help to change Hong Kong's status as a regional hub for wildlife trade to one for excellence in wildlife crime deterrence.This article is categorized under: Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Expert Evidence and Narrative Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Communication Across Science and Law Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Interdisciplinary Collaboration Forensic Biology > DNA Databases and Biometrics
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 7 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
