HKSAR v. SEGOUDAVOUDOU MOUGAMMADOU ISSOUMAGUIL

DCCC206/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 206 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant, Mr Segoudavoudou, pleads guilty to 5 counts of theft. The details of the charges are set out in the charge sheet. The court is not going to repeat them here now.

Facts Admitted

2.  Sabeera was a company dealing in jewellery trading.  It was solely owned by the defendant since September 2005.  The defendant would obtain diamonds from suppliers and would acknowledge receipt of them by signing a bailment note listing the details of the diamonds and values.  If the defendant failed to find buyers for the diamonds within one or two weeks, the defendant would inform the suppliers whether he was going to buy the diamonds or not.  If not, he would return the diamonds to the suppliers.  If yes, he would sign an invoice and he would be given a grace period of 150 to 180 days to make full payment. 

Charge 1

3.  Alma Diamonds Company (Hong Kong) Limited (“Alma”) started having business dealings with the defendant in 1998 with no untoward incidents.  Between 16 May 2006 and 29 June 2006 the defendant obtained diamonds from Alma on seven occasions in the total value of $1,945,930.79.  Alma was never paid for the diamonds by the defendant or Sabeera.

Charge 2

4.  Simi-Diam Limited (“Simi”) started to have business dealings with the defendant in 2001.  Between 10 April 2006 and 27 June 2006 the defendant obtained diamonds in the total value of $653,432.51 from Simi on five occasions.  Simi was never paid for the diamonds by the defendant or Sabeera.

Charge 3

5.  Jewelex (Hong Kong) Limited (“Jewelex”) started to have business dealings with the defendant in 1995.  Between 20 May 2006 and 14 June 2006 the defendant obtained diamonds in the total value of $240,008 from Jewelex on two occasions.  Jewelex was never paid for the diamonds by the defendant or Sabeera.

Charge 4

6.  Mr Dilip Ramniklal Shah trading as Diaccents Exports had business dealings with the defendant since 2001.  Between 4 April 2006 and 22 May 2006 the defendant obtained diamonds in the total value of $49,944.96 from Mr Shah on two occasions.  Mr Shah was never paid for the diamonds by the defendant or Sabeera.

Charge 5

7.  Blue Gems Trading Company Limited (“Blue Gems”) had business dealing with the defendant since 2005.  Between 22 May 2006 and 28 June 2006, the defendant obtained diamonds in the total value of $373,228.36 from Blue Gems on four occasions.  Blue Gems was never paid for the diamonds by the defendant or Sabeera.

8.  In late July and early August 2006 these five suppliers lost contact with the defendant and found that the office of Sabeera had closed down.  The case was reported to the police. 

9.  According to business registration records, Sabeera ceased business on 1 April 2006 and travel index checks revealed that the defendant had left Hong Kong on 1 July 2006.  He was arrested when he returned to Hong Kong on 22 December 2011. 

10.  In the subsequent video recorded interviews he admitted having business dealings with the five victim suppliers.  He suffered losses in business and was unable to pay for the diamonds.  As he was threatened by Alma and Blue Gems, he sold his real property and left Hong Kong. 

Criminal record

11.  The defendant has a clear record.

Mitigation

12.  Solicitor for the defendant points out in mitigation that the defendant is 45 years old and is married with five children aged from 4 to 16.  He is the sole breadwinner of the family and has been a law-abiding citizen until he committed the present offences.  Shortly before the offences, the sister of the defendant committed suicide.  The defendant became depressed and went back to India for medical treatment.  He later moved to stay in London.  He is remorseful for his wrongdoings.

13.  He would have faced up to the event had he not gone away from Hong Kong to obtain medical treatment. The defendant had always wanted to make payment to the suppliers and had always intended to make arrangement with them for the repayment. 

14.  The solicitor submits the mitigation letters of the defendant and his wife.  The defendant points out in the letter that he committed the offences because of his serious illness caused by his business losses and the suicide of his sister.  He left Hong Kong to go to India for treatment and he was subject to serious threats of the suppliers.  He would have committed suicide if not for the sake of his wife and five children.  He wanted to support his family and make payment to the suppliers by instalments.  He asks for leniency of the court.

15.  The wife explains in the letter why the defendant committed the offences which is similar to what the defendant says in his letter.  She and the defendant came back to Hong Kong with a view to explaining the situation to the suppliers, but the defendant was arrested on arrival in Hong Kong.  She asks for the leniency of the court.

16.  The solicitor points out that the present case falls within the band of 1 million to 3 million dollars which, according to HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776, carries a term of imprisonment of 3 to 4 years.  She asks the court to take into account the clear record and guilty plea of the defendant.

Sentence

17.  The facts of the present case are similar to those in the case of HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu cited by the defence.  The court accepts that the sentencing guidelines set out in the case as perfected in the case of HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 apply to the present case.  According to these guidelines, if the amount is less than $250,000, the starting point is less than 2 years.  If the amount is $250,000 to $1,000,000, the starting point is 2 to 3 years.  And if the amount is $1,000,000 to $3,000,000, the starting point is 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment. 

18.  Although the court has much sympathy for the defendant for the tragic loss of his sister and for his illness, it must be pointed out that this can never be an excuse to break the law and does not constitute a valid mitigating factor.  The fact that the defendant sold his real property before leaving Hong Kong must show that he had thought and planned about the matter before he fled from his suppliers. 

19.  After considering all the circumstances, the court adopts a starting point of 4 years imprisonment for Charge 1; 2½ years imprisonment for Charge 2; 1 year 9 months imprisonment for Charge 3; 10 months imprisonment for Charge 4 and 2 years 3 months imprisonment for Charge 5.

20.  In a case of this nature, the clear record of the defendant counts very little towards mitigation, but the court is still prepared to give him some credit for it.  Taking this and the guilty plea of the defendant into consideration, the court sentences him to 2 years 6 months imprisonment for Charge 1; 1 year 6 months imprisonment for Charge 2; 1 year imprisonment for Charge 3; 6 months imprisonment for Charge 4; and 1 year 4 months imprisonment for Charge 5. 

21.  Considering the nature of the case and the totality principle, the court is of the view that an overall sentence of 3 years imprisonment sufficiently reflects in the culpability of the defendant.  The court therefore orders that the sentences of Charge 1 and Charge 4 are to run consecutively but concurrently with the sentences of the rest of the charges.  The defendant is to go to prison for a total of 3 years.