|
DCCC 8/2023
[2024] HKDC 29
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 8 OF 2023
________________________
________________________
| Before: |
His Honour Judge J. Lam |
| Present: |
Mr. TSOI Shun Cheong, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR / Director of Public Prosecutions |
| |
Mr. CHEUNG David C. W., instructed by Mike So, Joseph Lau & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offences: |
[1] Theft (盜竊罪) |
| |
[2] & [3] Attempted theft (企圖盜竊罪) |
________________________
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
________________________
Charges
1. The defendant pleads guilty to: Charge 1, theft; Charge 2, attempted theft; and Charge 3, attempted theft.
Facts
Charge 1
2. In mid-February 2021, the defendant purchased three sets of credit card details, card A, card B and card C, on an internet forum. These three cards relate to three different persons. The defendant paid $100 for each card.
3. On 21 February 2021, the defendant ordered a set of wireless speaker on an e-commerce platform operated by Tom Lee Music Company Limited. He used card A to pay $6,888 for the purchase.
4. On 2 March 2021, the seller delivered the goods to an address in Kowloon Bay as per the defendant’s instructions. The next day, the defendant went there to collect the goods. He took the goods back to his office in Kwun Tong and soon sold the goods to someone else for $3,000.
Charge 2
5. On 3 March 2021, the defendant used a prepaid phone card to order from the same e-commerce platform a bundle set of sound projector. He paid $9,980 for it with card B.
Charge 3
6. Six days later, ie 9 March 2021, the defendant ordered another two sets of wireless speakers from the same e-commerce platform. This time he paid the price of $13,776 with card C.
7. The seller became alerted and withheld the delivery of the goods in Charges 2 and 3.
8. The police were able to trace the defendant. On 15 March 2021, the defendant was arrested at his home.
9. The defendant admitted that he had committed the three offences. He told the police that he had thrown away the prepaid phone cards used in Charges 2 and 3.
Criminal Record
10. The defendant has two previous convictions, one in 2015 and one in 2022.
11. In 2015, the defendant was sentenced to a total of 25 months’ imprisonment for 10 counts of theft and two counts of obtaining access to a computer with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another.
12. In 2022, the defendant was fined and disqualified from driving for one count of dangerous driving.
Mitigation
13. The defendant is 31 years old now. His counsel says he used to live with his parents. Before he was arrested, he was a delivery worker earning about $10,000 per month.
14. Counsel says the defendant committed the three offences out of greed. There was little to no planning. The defendant co-operated with the police and admitted his guilt at the earliest opportunity.
15. Counsel cites a few cases including HKSAR v Li Chi Yat, CACC 189/2018. In that case, the appellant stole the credit card of another person and used it to make a successful purchase of $7,917 and two failed buys of $10,464 and $7,288 respectively. He pleaded guilty to all those counts. The sentencing judge adopted 3 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for each offence and ordered the three terms of resultant sentences, ie 24 months’ imprisonment, to run concurrently.
16. The Court of Appeal agreed that the three terms could run concurrently but said the starting point was too high in light of the low value of the goods involved. The Court of Appeal reduced the starting point for those offences to one of 2 years’ imprisonment. After discount for plea, the resultant sentence for each count was only 16 months’ imprisonment. The three terms were ordered to run concurrently but consecutively to 3 months of the sentence for the remaining Theft count.
Sentence
17. The nature of the present case is quite similar to that of Li Chi Yat. Yet this case is slightly more serious than the other case. In the case of Li Chi Yat, the appellant just used one credit card to make the three purchases. Here the defendant made use of three sets of credit card details relating to three different persons to make three dishonest purchases.
18. Nevertheless, the value of the goods involved were not massive and the seller only lost their goods in Charge 1 which were of the worth of $6,888. The deliveries in the other two buys had been withheld.
19. The crimes perpetrated by the defendant were not elaborate but he did commit those crimes with some planning. He first purchased three sets of credit card details on an internet forum. Then he used a prepaid SIM card to make the purchases in Charge 2 and 3. He also tried to avoid being tracked down by asking the seller to deliver the goods to an unrelated address for his collection in Charge 1.
20. The defendant has previous convictions. The one in 2015 was for a total of 12 offences involving dishonesty. He was then sent to prison for 25 months. In the circumstances of this case, I would adopt a starting point of 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for each offence. Defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity. He is entitled to a one-third discount. He is thus sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment on each charge and the three terms are to run concurrently.
|