Woman who kept 79 dogs in her home fined S$21,500 in unprecedented case

In total, 71 dogs were microchipped by AVS at a cost of over S$1,400. The cost remains unpaid by Moss.

NParks was subsequently informed by the law firm that it would be working with the High Court sheriff to issue an eviction notice.

As the animals were likely to be removed on eviction, NParks issued a notice to Moss to inform them if the dogs were relocated, along with the new address.

The eviction notice issued to Moss’ husband and the occupants of the home stated that they had to be evicted by the end of October 2024.

The bank extended the eviction dates several times on compassionate grounds to January 2025. In that interim period, NParks repeatedly asked Moss where the dogs would go, and Moss said she would be moving to another property in the Holland Village area, but gave no further details.

NParks later found that the family had left the address with all the dogs. Moss persistently refused to inform NParks of the new address.

It was only in April 2025 that NParks discovered through public feedback that Moss had moved the dogs into a rental home.

NParks tracked down Moss and continued to offer help to rehome the animals.

The number of dogs increased by 10 between October 2024 and April 2025.

In April, Moss’ landlord terminated the tenancy due to non-payment of rent. As Moss had to relocate at short notice, she allowed NParks to rehome 37 dogs.

All the dogs were rehomed with the assistance of an animal welfare group, but Moss subsequently refused to cooperate with further rehoming efforts.

She told NParks that she would never agree to surrender the remaining dogs. NParks in July 2025 seized the remaining dogs and a court granted their forfeiture later that month.

Fifty-two of the dogs have been rehomed and three returned to Moss.

SENTENCING ARGUMENTS

The NParks prosecutor sought a fine of S$21,500 to S$26,500 for Moss, saying the case was “unprecedented in scope and severity”.

He said the case began in 2022 when the authorities discovered the 65 unlicensed and non-microchipped dogs. Despite four inspections and repeated engagements over two years, the dog population actually increased.

He pointed to Moss’ “persistent defiance of regulatory oversight”, the unprecedented scale of offending and her repeated failures to comply with official directions.

Moss’ lawyer James Liew asked for a fine of between S$15,000 and S$20,000 instead, saying that it was quite apparent his client committed the offences “purely out of passion and compassion for her dogs”.

While admittedly “extreme”, the offences were “purely borne out of passion and compassion for the dogs and nothing else”, said Mr Liew.

“She has not caused any harm and damage and injury to anyone in particular, not even loss,” he said.

He asked for some leniency so Moss could “move on with her life”.

The judge said the case was unprecedented in terms of the number of dogs and persistence in offending. She said the potential harm in terms of public health and the safety of the dogs themselves was significant, especially given the “ever-increasing dog population” in the home.

For keeping more than three dogs at her premises, which was not a dog farm or pet shop, she could have been fined up to S$5,000.

For failing to comply with the AVS director-general’s directions to microchip her dogs, she could have been jailed for up to 12 months, fined up to S$10,000, or both.

For owning a dog without a licence, she could have been fined up to S$5,000 per charge.

For failing to inform the director-general before removing the dogs to a new place, she could have been jailed for up to six months, fined up to S$5,000, or both.