HKSAR v. JHON ISKANDAR (also known as ANDRI MARDANI, MARDANI ANDRI, RICO HERMAWAN, FERDIAN DINATA and PURNAMA SETIAWAN) AND OTHERS

DCCC 1011/2025

[2025] HKDC 2068

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1011 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The three defendants here, 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd defendant, have entered plea of guilty to, firstly, charge 1 which is a charge of attempted theft committed on 12 November 2024 in Hong Kong in relation to a sum of some $500,000.  The 1^st  defendant has also entered a plea of guilty to additional charge of breach of deportation order and the 2^nd defendant has entered a plea of guilty to an additional charge of a breach of a deportation order.

2.  The defendants are all Indonesian Nationals who entered Hong Kong on the day before the commission of the offence. They entered on 11 November 2024, the offence was committed on 12 November 2024, so it would appear on the basis of the facts that they have admitted it could be inferred that they came to Hong Kong to commit this offence.

3.  The Amended Summary of Facts has been accepted by the defendants.  It shows, in brief, that the victim of this case described as PW1 worked for a company called the All Winning Telecom Company. He was responsible for depositing and withdrawal of cash for that company.  On 12 November 2024 in the afternoon, he went to the Bank of China to make a cash withdrawal in the sum of HK$500,000.  Having successfully made that cash withdrawal of $500,000 he then left the bank.  The cash had been placed into his backpack.  After exiting the bank, he appeared to be followed by the 3^rd defendant.  He picked up speed but was approached by all the defendants and the case is that the three defendants were together involved in the attempt to seize the backpack and the cash that is inside it. 

4.  The 1^st defendant was arrested at the scene and the other defendants were arrested on attempting to leave Hong Kong.  They all made records under caution, the 1^st and 2^nd defendants making admissions.  The court will treat this case as a joint enterprise by these three defendants to attempt to steal the $500,000 contained in the backpack.

5.  As already indicated, the three defendants are all Indonesian Nationals.  The 1^st defendant is currently age 40.  He has worked in employment in food trading in Indonesia but he has a criminal record in Hong Kong dating back to 2005 when he was first convicted of theft and received a sentence of 11 months’ imprisonment; 2013, a further offence of theft, 10 months’ imprisonment; 2014, he was convicted of a breach of a deportation order receiving a sentence of 17 months’ imprisonment.  Later in 2017, he committed a further attempted theft receiving a sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment and a breach of deportation order for which he received a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment, 13 months of those months of imprisonment being consecutive to the attempted theft.

6.  The 2^nd defendant is also said to be aged 40.  He has one previous conviction in 2009 for theft for which he received a sentence of 15 months.  Pointed out by counsel, quite rightly, that that conviction is now 15 years old and in mitigation he has asked that I not consider the matter as an aggravating feature in his case.

7.  The 3^rd defendant is I am told 34 years old and is of clear record.  As far as the mitigation concerned for each defendant is concerned is as follows:

The 1^st defendant is 40 years old; received education to Secondary 1 level; married, lives in Indonesia with his wife, son, daughter and his mother. He operated a small kiosk with his wife and is and was the main breadwinner of his family. He points to his admissions made at the time, his indication of plea of guilty throughout this case and it is his intention, he says, to not return to Hong Kong.

8.  As far as the 2^nd defendant is concerned, again he has admitted his background.  He is, according to his mitigation, he is now aged 45.  He is a married man, has three children aged from 3 to 20.  He has been a salesman, a part-time driver in Indonesia earning up to an equivalent of HK$2,000 each month.  He again is the main breadwinner of his family.  He has a previous conviction in 2009 and the deportation order that was made against him in 2010.  He has no record of committing any criminal cases in Hong Kong since that period.

9.  As far as the 3^rd defendant is concerned, she is a lady with clear record of 34 years old, Indonesian National, no previous convictions in Hong Kong.  Formal education up to High School level.  Relied financially on her parents originally.  She had begun life as a housewife and had given birth to a daughter in 2018.  Unfortunately, it appears her husband is deceased, died in 2021 following head injuries in an accident at home.  In her absence in Hong Kong, her daughter is being looked after by her mother but clearly the court should be aware that the mother is separated from her daughter and that is a clear mitigating factor.

10.  Taking a brief look at the sentencing considerations, of course, as I have indicated, this is an attempt to take a high value target here.  The victim was in a bank and had taken money out and it is a professional group of pickpockets here or snatching, taking a high-value target, and it appears from the Immigration records that they come to Hong Kong certainly shortly before the offence was committed.

11.  I have been referred to some authorities. Cases such as this are often approached as if they were pickpocketing offences although they do not fit quite clearly into that rubric.  The major authority which I have been referred to which sets out the general tariff for pickpocketing is HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1 where the Court of Appeal laid down the tariff for pickpocketing in the range of 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment for a first-time offender.  Account then has to be taken of the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors such as the presence or use of a weapon; whether the offence was committed in a place at which the public was of particular risk; whether there are any items such as previous convictions or the like; the extent to which force of any kind was used in the course of the pickpocketing event.

12.  There are another line of authorities which I have been referred to which deal with the situation similar to the present one where one has a professional gang of thieves praying on working people or unsuspecting citizens, for example HKSAR v Liao Mei and others CACC 432/2004 where a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment were approved.

13.  A similar case in the case of Wabhi Tri-Wahyu CACC 345/2014 where the victim had withdrawn $300,000 in cash, put it into a rucksack.  In that case the money was lost.  The defendant was an Indonesian National, he had an accomplice and a starting point of 36 months was thought appropriate by the court but in that case the defendant did have a previous conviction.  But in general, where a professional gang is praying on unsuspected citizens, a starting point of up to 30 months’ imprisonment have been approved in such cases. 

14.  Bearing in mind the facts of this case and the mitigation advanced in respect of the 1^st charge, I will take a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment as a general starting point.  As far the 1^st defendant is concerned, he has a previous conviction or more than one previous conviction.  So in his case, I am going to take a starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment, that will be reduced to 24 months’ imprisonment for his plea of guilty.

15.  The 2^nd defendant has a previous conviction but it is of some antiquity and I am going to discount it in respect of him.  I will take a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment on the 1^st charge, reduce that to 20 months’ imprisonment for the plea of guilty.

16.  I shall take the same approach for the 3^rd defendant, the starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment for her plea of guilty.

17.  Now in respect of the 1^st defendant, there is an additional charge, charge 2, which is a charge of breach of deportation order.  This is his third occasion on which he has been convicted of this offence.  I note for the case of HKSAR v Tran Viet Thanh CACC 54 and 221/2011, that for a first breach of deportation order, a sentence of 18 months, presumably after deduction for a plea of guilty, is appropriate; a sentence of 21 months for a second breach of deportation was appropriate and a sentence of 28 months where there was a fifth breach of deportation order.  What I shall do here is take a starting point at 36 months on the 2^nd charge, reduce that to 24 months for the defendant’s plea of guilty.

18.  The 2^nd defendant on the 3^rd charge has also pleaded guilty of breach of deportation order.  I have already noted that the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for a first breach of a deportation order is appropriate.  This takes into account the plea of guilty.  So the sentence on the 3^rd charge for the 2^nd defendant will be one of 18 months’ imprisonment.

19.  As far as the 1^st and 2^nd defendant, there are questions of overall totality to be dealt with as they pleaded guilty to more than one charge.  I must look at the overall correct totality of sentence. 

20.  What I shall order in respect of each defendant is that the 12 months of their breach of deportation order charge will run consecutively to charge 1.  So in respect of the 1^st defendant, the formal order is 12 months of charge 2 will run consecutively to charge 1 with a total of 36 months’ imprisonment. 

21.  As far as the 2^nd defendant is concerned, 12 months of charge 3 will run consecutively to charge 1 to a total of 32 months’ imprisonment.

22.  For the 3^rd defendant, of course the sentence will be one of 20 months’ imprisonment.