In September 2025, several pet dogs at Poly Xingman Garden in Nansha, Guangzhou, died after suspected poisoning. Public reports say a resident mixed rat poison into minced pork and placed it in lawns, roadside grass and greenbelts. On February 5, 2026, the Nansha District Court sentenced him to one year and ten months in prison for the crime of placing dangerous substances.

Rat-poisoned meat placed in public areas

According to reports by The Paper, Cover News, China Youth Online and HK01, after September 2, 2025, several pet dogs at Poly Xingman Garden in Nansha, Guangzhou, developed convulsions, vomiting, diarrhea and breathing problems. Some died on the way to hospital, and multiple owners reported suspected poisoning to police.

Court materials cited by media say that around midnight on September 2, Chen, a resident troubled by dog noise and feces in the community, mixed rat poison with minced pork and placed it on lawns near West Area Building 11, grass beside the north-side sidewalk, and two greenbelts outside the north gate. His purpose, according to the reports, was to kill pet dogs.

Testing found fluoroacetamide-type rodenticide in minced pork collected at the scene and in the stomach contents of three victims’ pet dogs. This type of rodenticide is highly toxic, carries a risk of secondary poisoning, and has been banned from production, sale and use in China.

This was not an ordinary neighborhood dispute or a response to uncivil pet keeping. Placing highly toxic bait in residential lawns, roads and greenbelts pushed animals unable to recognize the danger toward death, and also endangered residents, children, other animals and the shared environment.

Three dogs recognized by the court, and more suffering that could not be preserved as evidence

The Paper reported that more than ten people joined a rights-defense group after the incident, and that the poisoned dogs were not limited to three. Some dogs, however, were cremated or buried before toxicological testing, so their deaths were not ultimately recognized by the court as caused by Chen. Cover News also reported that at least ten dog owners in the community reported similar incidents after September 2.

Public reports named several victims, including the Schnauzer Booya, the corgi Rocco, and Zhenzhu, a seven-year-old pregnant Teddy. Booya’s owner recalled that the dog cried in distress, convulsed and became stiff on the way to the hospital. Ms. Long said Zhenzhu returned home on the evening of September 5 in an abnormal state, scratching the door, covered in dirt, with vomit and excrement in the living room and balcony; Zhenzhu died before they reached the hospital.

The Paper reported that Zhenzhu was pregnant and due to give birth in a little over twenty days. Her owner once said during police questioning that she hoped to bury Zhenzhu and did not want testing unless necessary, because the dog was about to have babies. That grief meant some evidence never entered the judicial record. It does not mean the harm did not exist; it shows how easily animal suffering can fall outside legal text when evidence is lost.

First-instance sentence for placing dangerous substances

On October 8, 2025, Chen turned himself in to police. Media reports say he was criminally detained the next day and formally arrested on October 23.

On February 5, 2026, the Nansha District People’s Court heard the case publicly and pronounced judgment in court. It found that Chen’s poisoned minced pork caused three victims’ dogs to ingest poison and die. Considering the nature, circumstances, consequences and confession, the court sentenced him to one year and ten months in prison.

Cover News reported that courtroom observers said prosecutors and the judge emphasized the public danger: the bait was placed on internal community roads, grass outside the community, and a sidewalk island near an elementary school where children often played or passed through. That public-risk element helped bring the case into criminal proceedings.

This is a rare record of criminal accountability, but it also reveals the limits of the current path: the legal core was the danger to public safety, not direct protection of dogs as sentient beings with pain, attachment and life experience. The number of dogs recognized by the court depended on toxicology, preserved stomach contents, surveillance and the chain of evidence; dogs carried by their owners to death, or hurriedly buried or cremated, may never receive a full place in the judgment.

What the owners’ persistence preserved

Several owners insisted on reporting to police, preserving remains and stomach contents, and attending the trial. Their persistence allowed investigators to identify a specific perpetrator. A lawyer assisting the owners told Cover News that poisoned-pet cases often fail at the evidence stage: surveillance, identifying the poisoner, proving the poison type and dose, and preserving remains all become harder as time passes.

These difficulties should not become gaps for poisoners. Booya, Rocco, Zhenzhu and other dogs not fully recognized in court were not losses in a neighborhood quarrel. They were lives cared for, loved and remembered by families. Their convulsions, vomiting, cries and deaths deserve an honest record.

Complaints about noise, feces and community management can be handled through property management, community mediation, law enforcement and civil communication. Ending animal lives with poison is not only cruel; it damages public life itself. This file records the case so the victims are not reduced to a number, and to remind later readers that the path to defending harmed animals remains limited, but limitation is not a reason for silence.

Timeline

Public sources

• The Paper report
• Tencent News republication of Cover News
• Cover News original report
• China Youth Online report
• HK01 report