Indicators include: 1) legislation that requires the elimination of products or other new or criminal taxes or obligations; 2) legislation that institutes a tax or concession concession for other taxes or obligations; 3) legislation that establishes a subsidy, subsidy or compensation scheme or any other system offering a benefit; 4) legislation that increases or increases the tax on legal property or otherwise increases the cost of legal property; 5) legislation prohibiting or limiting a required product or service or otherwise reducing the availability of requested goods or services; 6) legislation that increases or removes law enforcement capacity, increases or reduces funding for law enforcement, or has other effects on the intensity of prosecutions; 7) Legislation granting regulatory powers to public servants (Transcrime 2006: 3). In the EU, CITES was implemented by Council Regulation N. 338/1997 and By Commission Regulation 865/2006. EU rules governing the trade in wildlife, which are directly applicable in all Member States, go beyond THE provisions of CITES in order to more strictly control the trade in wildlife (Engler and Parry-Jones 2007). CiteS has, on the whole, been recognized as a good mechanism for ensuring the sustainable use of natural resources (Zimmerman 2003; Warchol 2004; Rivalan et al. 2007; Wyatt 2016), he was also subjected to a series of criticisms. First, the regulation and control of the wildlife trade depends on different environmental policies and judgments at the national level, leading to the lack of harmonization of national legislation and the creation of gaps in criminal exploitation (Sand 1997). Young 2003; Lemieux and Clarke 2009; Bowman 2013; Sollund 2015; Sollund and Maher 2015; Maher and Sollund 2016; In particular, CITES`s approach to quoting “blacklisted” species has been criticized as an inherent weakness and a legacy of a historical misunderstanding of the complexity of biodiversity (Couzens 2013). Secondly, as Sand (1997: 55) found 20 years ago, CITES may have “reached its external limits” as the importance of CITES-type border controls diminishes with the removal of internal trade borders in “new” realities such as that of the European Union. Third, there are problems in the application of CITES, which is not a self-fulfillment contract (Zimmerman 2003); Izzo 2010; Sand 2013). Footnote 3 Finally, according to Sollund`s critical position (2011), the legal structure provided for by CITES could even legitimize the illegal trade in wild animals, since it regulates the trade in animals and plants already threatened instead of prohibiting it in court. It could be argued that this is not the case, given that international trade in threatened species (listed in Appendix I) is prohibited by CITES, with the exception of exceptional circumstances, while it is permitted (on authorization) for Schedule II species that are not yet threatened, but which could become so if trade is not regulated.