- Joined
- Jun 11, 2017
- Messages
- 17,232
- Points
- 113
SINGAPORE — A man who sold a kitten of the munchkin breed for S$1,850, but claimed that the money was for an adoption fee, was ordered to pay a S$3,000 fine in a district court on Monday (March 23).
Lin Jieqiang was found guilty of using his Kovan home as a pet shop without a valid licence on March 16, 2018.
The 31-year-old had claimed trial to the charge under the Animals and Birds (Pet Shop and Exhibition) Rules, which prohibits the use of any premises as a pet shop or for the exhibition or distribution of animals or birds without a licence.
District Judge Brenda Tan said that his defence that the payment was an adoption fee was “not believable”, given that the sum he received was more than 10 times the usual adoption fee at animal shelters.
WhatsApp messages between Lin and the buyers substantiated the sale too, the judge added.
Prosecutors from the National Parks Board said that on the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Causes for Animals websites, adoption prices for cats or kittens are generally around S$200.
During the trial, the court heard that when the customer’s wife saw Lin advertising three kittens on the classified portal Locanto, the customer contacted him to set up an appointment to view them.
The couple and their son then went to Lin’s home along Glasgow Road to interact with the kittens — in particular, the munchkin.
They eventually negotiated the price down from S$2,200 to S$1,850 and the customer, who already had five adopted cats, paid him that amount in cash.
While on the witness stand, the customer gave evidence of Lin’s claim that another person was interested in the kitten for S$1,900. Lin then said he would give a S$50 discount as the kitten was not vaccinated.
However, after getting the kitten and taking it to the vet, the customer soon found mites on its fur and ears, as well as ringworm — a contagious itching skin disease which occurs as small circular patches.
The customer tried to hold Lin responsible for the additional costs of treating the feline but failed.
Court documents did not disclose how the transaction came to the attention of the authorities.
In his defence, Lin said that it was not a sales transaction and that the customer had forced him to accept the money. He also claimed he had decided to give the three kittens up for adoption as his family was allergic to them.
After being sentenced on Monday, he told the court: “A lot of information on my part was mishandled. It’s been so long that I will accept the sentence.”
For using his home premises as a pet shop, he could have been fined up to S$5,000.
