A pair of animal traffickers have each pleaded guilty to 10 offences in relation to selling dogs and cats from their home in Manchester.
Laura Kiseliova (DoB: 14/06/79) and Raimondas Titas (DoB: 13/03/81) appeared at Manchester Crown Court this week for the start of a three-week trial. But, on Thursday (2 June), the pair pleaded guilty to a total of 10 offences each, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Fraud Act 2006, the Pet Animals Act 1951 and the Companies Act 2006.
The RSPCA launched an investigation into the pair, who were trafficking dogs into England from eastern Europe and selling them to unsuspecting members of the public.
Kiseliova was released on conditional bail and Titas was remanded in custody by the court to establish his correct address.
RSPCA special operations unit chief inspector Ian Briggs said: “When we attended the property in Prestwich on 18 November 2013 we found 41 dogs and puppies and eight cats in a variety of cages, crates and runs.
“Many of the dogs were French bulldogs, bulldogs, and pugs, while there were also pedigree cat breeds.
“It was obvious that this duo were dealing and trading in a large number of animals and that many of them were not receiving the appropriate care and veterinary attention they needed.
“Some of the animals were suffering from problems such as conjunctivitis, gastroenteritis or had sore and infected wounds.
“During our investigation, most of the animals were signed over into RSPCA care and later rehomed.”
Kiseliova pleaded guilty to:
Carrying on the business of Pets 313 Ltd for a fraudulent purpose, namely bringing dogs into the UK from Europe to sell them, misdescribed, at a profit – contrary to section 993(1) of the Companies Act 2006.
Keeping a pet shop without a licence – contrary to section 1 of the Pet Animals Act 1951.
Keeping a dog breeding establishment without a licence – contrary to section 1 of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973.
Causing unnecessary suffering to two dogs, by failing to provide proper and necessary veterinary care for hemorrhagic gastroenteritis – contrary to section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Causing unnecessary suffering to two dogs, by failing to provide proper and necessary veterinary care for conjunctivitis – contrary to section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Causing unnecessary suffering to one dog, by failing to provide proper and necessary veterinary care for infected wounds and painful limbs – contrary to section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Causing unnecessary suffering to one dog, by failing to provide proper and necessary veterinary care for moist dermatitis – contrary to section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Failing to ensure the needs of 41 dogs and eight cats were met by failing to protect them from pain, suffering injury, or disease by failing to establish a formal biosecurity and disease control programme – contrary to section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Failing to ensure the needs of all animals were met by failing to protect them from pain, suffering injury, or disease by failing to establish a formal biosecurity and disease control programme – contrary to section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Failing to ensure the needs of 22 dogs and eight cats were met by failing to provide a suitable environment – contrary to section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Titas pleaded guilty to:
Dishonestly and intending to make a gain for himself or another, made a representation to Petplan which was true or misleading, namely that he was the holder of a valid policy of insurance for a dog named Black Diamond and was entitled to make a claim – contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006.
Carrying on the business of Pets 313 Ltd for a fraudulent purpose, namely bringing dogs into the UK from Europe to sell them, misdescribed, at a profit – contrary to section 993(1) of the Companies Act 2006.
Keeping a dog breeding establishment without a licence – contrary to section 1 of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973.
Causing unnecessary suffering to two dogs, by failing to provide proper and necessary veterinary care for hemorrhagic gastroenteritis – contrary to section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Causing unnecessary suffering to two dogs, by failing to provide proper and necessary veterinary care for conjunctivitis – contrary to section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Causing unnecessary suffering to one dog, by failing to provide proper and necessary veterinary care for infected wounds and painful limbs – contrary to section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Causing unnecessary suffering to one dog, by failing to provide proper and necessary veterinary care for moist dermatitis – contrary to section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006..
Failing to ensure the needs of 41 dogs and eight cats were met by failing to protect them from pain, suffering injury, or disease by failing to establish a formal biosecurity and disease control programme – contrary to section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Failing to ensure the needs of all animals, for which they were responsible between 12 April 2012 and 19 November 2013, were met by failing to protect them from pain, suffering injury, or disease by failing to establish a formal biosecurity and disease control programme – contrary to section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Failing to ensure the needs of 22 dogs and eight cats were met by failing to provide a suitable environment – contrary to section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Kiseliova and Titas are due back at Manchester Crown Court on 8 July for sentencing
Enter your email and never miss out on receiving our best articles:
