HKSAR v. ROMLAN AND ANOTHER

DCCC 274/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 274 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  In this case, there are two defendants who have each pleaded guilty to six offences of fraud. They are jointly charged in respect of each offence.

2.  The case is a fraud that involved the use of what is described as spiritual blessing.  The two defendants are in Indonesians, and it was their practice to prey on a number of Indonesian domestic helpers.  They did this over a period of some 10 days in December of 2016.  As I said, all six victims were foreign domestic helpers from Indonesia.

3.  The defendants have agreed the facts of the case which set out the modus operandi of the spiritual-blessing fraud.  I think for the purposes of sentencing, it is sufficient to illustrate that from the 1st charge which occurred in the early afternoon of 1 December when the victim was going to the Sogo Department Store in Causeway Bay.  She was approached by the 1st and 2nd defendants.  They took out some stones, claiming they could bring good luck.  A spiritual-blessing ritual was arranged, and to show sincerity, the victim was asked to hand over money.  That victim parted with her iPhone and cash of $6,000, a good necklace, a pendant and three rings.  

4.  In this case, she was also asked to buy certain items to enhance the spiritual-blessing ritual.  She went off to buy the items.  When she came back, of course the defendants had gone.  That practice was continued in the rest of the offences: the use of an item with supposedly spiritual supernatural powers, the taking of cash from the victims, asking the victims to buy an item and then disappearing when the victim went to buy the item.

5.  As far as the charges that are concerned, we can see the items that were obtained.  In the 2nd charge, the victim parted with a smartphone and cash of $4,000; in the 3rd charge, the victim parted with a wallet, a necklace, a ring, cash of $4,800; in the 4th charge, a smartphone and cash of $2,500; in the 5th charge, a smartphone, a coin bag and cash of $2,000; in the 6th charge, a smartphone, a bank card and necklace.

6.  The defendants were intercepted on 13 December 2016, and they were in fact later identified by the victims.  They were apparently here as tourists, having entered to Hong Kong on 30 November 2016.  From the place where they were staying, various items were recovered such as some seven mobile phones, bags and a rucksack, and PW1 and 2 and 5 confirmed that their properties were found from the seized items.

7.  As far as the defendants’ backgrounds are concerned, they have both a clear record.  The 1st defendant is aged 41. He is a holder of an Indonesian passport, said to be here as a tourist.  He is a married man.  He has been married twice.  He has a number of children to support.  There are at least three daughters.  There are some older children aged 21 and 19.  They all live in a home in Indonesia.  The defendant was a security guard in Indonesia, earning a small sum of money.

8.  In mitigation, he has pleaded guilty to the offences, he has a clear record, and he is remorseful, and some items were recovered.   

9.  The 2nd defendant is aged 32.  He is married.  He has a 1-year-old son.  His mitigation is that he has pleaded guilty, he has a clear record in Hong Kong, and it is said that some of the property has been recovered.

10.  There is no actual tariff for this kind of offence, but generally a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for a person of clear record after trial has been adopted as the starting point for these kind of frauds.  This is no doubt subject to various aggravating and mitigating factors.

11.  Now, the defence point out that the defendants here are men of clear record, that the offences are at the lower end of severity in that the items as recovered are items that can be replaced.  They are items such as jewellery, cash and mobile phones.  Of course, they are very valuable items of the people concerned.

12.  What perhaps is of an aggravating factor in this case would be the number of offences involved and the persistence of them through the period of 10 days that they took part in it.  Of course, that can be dealt with by looking and adjusting whether the sentence should be served concurrently or consecutively rather than aggravating the starting point for sentence.   

13.  I consider that the appropriate starting point for sentence in each of these charges for each defendant should be one of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The defendants are entitled to a one-third discount from that sentence.  So on each charge against each defendant, the sentence of imprisonment will be 2 years’ imprisonment.

14.  I then have to consider the overall totality. These are six offences committed over about 10 days against six victims.  Of course, the defence want to still maintain a sense of proportions to the sentence.  To run the sentences consecutively, it would lead to a very large sentence.

15.  I consider the overall sentence of imprisonment for each defendant should be one of 3 years’ imprisonment.  I will achieve that as follows by in respect of each defendant to order that the sentences on Charges 1 and 3 run concurrently to each other, the sentences on Charges 4 to 6 run concurrently to each other but consecutively by 1 year to the sentences on 1 to 3; a total of 3 years’ imprisonment against each defendant.