HKSAR v. LABEROS ALBERIO IBANEZ

DCCC 1033/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1033 OF 2016

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of theft.

2.  He has agreed the facts of the case, and these show that he was employed as a domestic helper at a residence in Black’s Link in Happy Valley.  He had been employed there since 2011.

3.  On 31 July 2016 his employer found that jewellery had gone missing and made inquiries, and the defendant at that time admitted to his employer that he had stolen from a room and also her parents-in-law’s room, and he surrendered a total of 19 pawn tickets that he had used to pawn items stolen.

4.  Following a report to the police, various items were found in the defendant’s bedroom.  They were items of jewellery such as watches, and also valuable items such as coins.

5.  Further investigation showed that the defendant had pawned a number of items, and in total, the pawned items were valued at $315,000.

6.  In video-recorded interviews, the defendant admitted that the property found in his bedroom had been taken without permission and that also he had stolen 24 pawned items, and the money he had received had been spent at a casino in Macau.

7.  The total overall loss is $365,050.

8.  The defendant is 50 years old.  He is a Filipino. He has a clear record in Hong Kong and is educated up to university level in the Philippines in the area of civil engineering.  He has family in the Philippines which includes siblings and an elderly mother who he has supported through his employment in Hong Kong.

9.  The defendant attributes his commission of these offences to greed and also a desire to spend money gambling.  He has spent all the money.  There is no reparation that can be offered.

10.  As far as sentence in a case such as this is concerned, this involves a breach of trust and is a theft from his employer. As such, the starting point for sentence is governed, to a certain extent, by guideline sentencing where similar cases are sentenced in a similar way.

11.  The amount of loss in this case is valued, as I have already said, at $365,000.  The guideline sentence proposes that in a case involving a breach of trust where the value of the stolen property lies between $250,000 and $1 million, that a starting point for sentence should lie between 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment.

12.  The amount of money or the value of the items stolen here would place the starting point for sentence towards the lower point on the guideline, and I must decide what point to select on that guideline.

13.  As far as the aggravating features of the case are concerned, there are no particular ones to consider.  As far as mitigation is concerned, there is, of course, the defendant’s previous clear record, his plea of guilty, and his admission to the offence at an early stage, and the provision of the pawn tickets that allowed that the extent of the case and the items stolen could be determined.  So the defendant has, to a great extent, co‑operated with the authorities in the investigation of this offence.

14.  Taking all those considerations into account, I consider that I should take a starting point for sentence for the defendant at the lowest end of the guideline of 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment, so my starting point for sentence in this case will be one of 24 months’ imprisonment.

15.  The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount as he has indicated a plea of guilty from an early stage.

16.  That means that the final sentence of imprisonment for this case will be one of 16 months’ imprisonment, and that is the sentence I will impose.