The Singaporean court issued its verdict on 19/11/2024, charging Moss, 50, with 28 offenses. The most serious of these included keeping dogs without a license and exceeding the permitted number. The judge described the case as "unprecedented in its scale and severity" for the country.

The incident began in 6/2022 when the National Parks Board (NParks) inspected Moss's home. The apartment was already under foreclosure by the bank due to her husband's bankruptcy. Officials discovered 65 dogs, mostly poodle mixes, crowded inside. Singapore's Animals and Birds Act stipulates that private residences are permitted to keep a maximum of three dogs.

Over the next two years, NParks repeatedly requested that Moss microchip, spay/neuter, and rehome the dogs to reduce their number to the legal limit. However, she consistently delayed, claiming she was moving to Dubai with her husband and would take all the pets with her.

A few of the poodles from the total of 79 animals kept by Moss in her Singapore apartment. Photo: newswav

In reality, Moss made no effort to rehome them. As they were not spayed or neutered, the dogs continued to multiply, increasing from 65 to 79. In 5/2024, she again ignored a request to microchip all the pets within 90 days, citing a lack of funds.

By 9/2024, NParks veterinarians had to visit her home directly to microchip 71 of the dogs. Moss subsequently failed to pay the cost exceeding 1,400 SGD for this service.

In early 2025, when the bank officially repossessed her home, Moss secretly moved the dogs elsewhere and concealed their location. It was not until 4/2025, following a tip from the public, that authorities located her new rental accommodation. At this point, her landlord had also just terminated her contract due to unpaid rent. Under pressure from the authorities, she agreed to hand over 37 dogs to new owners but insisted on keeping the remaining ones.

In 7/2025, the court ordered the seizure of all the dogs. Currently, 52 dogs have found new homes, and three dogs were returned to Moss after she completed the necessary legal procedures.

At the court hearing on 19/11/2024, the defense lawyer argued that his client's actions stemmed from a "love for animals." Rejecting this argument, the judge affirmed that concentrating a large number of dogs in an unsuitable environment posed risks to public health and threatened the welfare of the animals themselves.

Minh Phuong (Source: CNA)