LAW OF THE TIGER

The report identifies significant legal fragmentation and gaps across 12 tiger range countries (TRCs), particularly regarding the regulation of the entire trade chain, captive breeding, hybrid species, and digital markets. Key findings highlight that while tigers are protected, many TRCs lack mandatory confiscation requirements, comprehensive definitions of 'wildlife trade', and explicit regulations for tiger hybrids. Enforcement is often hindered by fragmented inter-agency coordination and a lack of specialized powers for frontline officers. Furthermore, online trade is largely under-regulated, and only a few countries adequately link wildlife crime to anti-money laundering frameworks as a predicate offence. The report recommends mandating permanent inter-agency task forces, criminalising all acts in the trafficking chain, and aligning national laws with CITES and UNTOC standards to combat transnational organised crime.

• Legal frameworks across the 12 reviewed tiger range countries (TRCs) exhibit significant gaps and inconsistencies that hinder the fight against tiger trafficking, particularly in how they regulate the trade chain beyond import and export.
• Enforcement is often fragmented by institutional silos and a lack of essential powers for frontline officers; for example, rangers in Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Laos may lack the authority to detain suspects or conduct investigations without police support.
• There is a critical lack of mandatory confiscation requirements in several TRCs, which increases the risk of illegal specimens leaking back into trade; only China, Bhutan, India, Laos, Malaysia, and Thailand require authorities to seize contraband in specified circumstances.
• Most TRCs lack comprehensive definitions of 'wildlife trade', with only Thailand and Viet Nam providing comprehensive definitions; this leads to legal gaps regarding non-commercial or intermediary acts like storage and advertising.
• Online trade is a major regulatory blind spot, with only China and Thailand explicitly addressing it in their legislation, despite the increasing use of digital platforms for trafficking.
• Tiger hybrids are frequently excluded from legal protection because national definitions of 'wildlife' often limit coverage to species naturally occurring in the wild; only Malaysia and Viet Nam expressly regulate hybrids.
• Anti-money laundering (AML) tools are underutilised because most TRCs do not identify wildlife crime as a predicate offence; only India, China, Malaysia, and Thailand adequately make this connection.
• Captive tiger facilities are poorly regulated, with inconsistent oversight and weak traceability systems; only Bhutan and India expressly recognise captive breeding for conservation purposes in their legal frameworks.

APA

Wingard, J., Stivanello, V., Sohl, H., & Henry, L. (2025). LAW OF THE TIGER. WWF International. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/2277/v8_legislation-report_2025_hr-pages.pdf

Chicago

Wingard, James, Valentina Stivanello, Heather Sohl, and Leigh Henry. LAW OF THE TIGER. WWF International, 2025. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/2277/v8_legislation-report_2025_hr-pages.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Wingard |first1=James |last2=Stivanello |first2=Valentina |last3=Sohl |first3=Heather |last4=Henry |first4=Leigh |title=LAW OF THE TIGER |publisher=WWF International |date=2025 |url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/2277/v8_legislation-report_2025_hr-pages.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{wingard2025law, author = {Wingard, James and Stivanello, Valentina and Sohl, Heather and Henry, Leigh}, title = {{LAW OF THE TIGER}}, institution = {WWF International}, year = {2025}, url = {https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/2277/v8_legislation-report_2025_hr-pages.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }