HKSAR v. YE JIANFENG

DCCC 1412/2025

[2026] HKDC 1419

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1412 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant YE Jianfeng (D)  pleaded guilty before me to 3 Charges of Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.  Charge 1 occurred on 14 October 2024 at LGT Bank AG, 45^th Floor, Two Exchange Square, No. 8 Connaught Place, involving cash around HKD 2,000. Charge 2 occurred on 30 October 2024 at BlackRock Asset Management North Asia Limited, 17^th Floor, Champion Tower, No. 3 Garden Road, Central, involving 1 watch. Charge 3 occurred on 20 November 2024 at CITIC Pacific Limited, 9^th Floor, CITIC Tower, No. 1 Tim Mei Avenue, Central, involving 1 watch.

Facts of case

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by D can be summarized as follows:

Charge 1

4.  The office of LGT Bank AG (“LGT Bank”)  was situated at 45^th Floor, Two Exchange Square, No. 8 Connaught Place, Central. Its entrance was secured by glass doors accessible only to staff through facial recognition or staff card.

5.  At about 1200 hours on 14 October 2024, Ms KWOK Po Lam (“Ms KWOK”), an employee of LGT Bank, confirmed that her wallet containing around HKD 2,000 cash was inside her unlocked cabinet in the office area. At about 1400 hours on the same day, she returned to the office area and discovered that the said cash was missing from her wallet.

6.  CCTV of LGT Bank captured D entering LGT Bank at 1234 hours via the glass doors as a trespasser as soon as a staff member walked out from the office. Between 1237 hours and 1238 hours, D ransacked Ms KWOK’s cabinet and took cash out from her wallet in the cabinet, and then put the cash into his jeans’ pocket. D then left LGT Bank via the glass doors at 1246 hours.

Charge 2

7.  The office of BlackRock Asset Management North Asia Limited (“BlackRock”)  was situated at 17^th Floor, Champion Tower, No. 3 Garden Road, Central. BlackRock could only be accessed with staff card or registration by guests at the front desk.

8.  At about 1310 hours on 30 October 2024, Mr HUNG Tsz Man (“Mr HUNG”), an employee of BlackRock, left his IWC watch (“the IWC Watch”)  on his desk in the office area. At 1330 hours on the same day, when he returned to his desk, he discovered the IWC Watch missing.

9.  CCTV of Champion Tower captured that at 1249 hours on 30 October 2024, D tailed after a staff member to get past the security gate to enter the lift lobby of Champion Tower. D then boarded a lift to go up to the office area of Champion Tower.

10.  On the same day as Mr HUNG reported the IWC Watch missing, D pawned the IWC Watch for HKD 17,000 at the “Tung Tak Pawn Shop” located at No. 367 Hennessy Road, Causeway Bay. D used his China Two-Way Permit for registration in the pawning process.

Charge 3

11.  The office of CITIC Pacific Limited (“CITIC Pacific”)  was situated at 9^th Floor, CITIC Tower, No. 1 Tim Mei Avenue, Central. Its entrances were secured by glass doors which could only be accessed by staff card.

12.  At about 1300 hours on 20 November 2024, Mr FOK Chun Man (“Mr FOK”), an employee of CITIC Pacific, placed his Rolex watch (“the Rolex Watch”)  on his desk and left his room at CITIC Pacific without locking it. At about 1305 hours on the same day, when he returned to his room, he found the Rolex Watch missing.

13.  CCTV of CITIC Tower captured that at 1241 hours on 20 November 2024, D tailed after a staff member to get past the security gate to enter the lift lobby of CITIC Tower. D then boarded the lift and went up to CITIC Pacific.  At 1303 hours on the same day, D went inside Mr FOK’s office and left at 1304 hours, before Mr FOK discovered the Rolex Watch missing at about 1305 hours.

14.  At 1234 hours on 22 November 2024, D went to “28 Watches”, a watch dealer located at Unit G10B, Ground Floor, Causeway Bay Plaza I, No. 489 Hennessy Road, Causeway Bay, to pawn the Rolex Watch for HKD 75,000.  On 18 December 2024, a staff of “28 Watches” positively identified D in the Identification Parade.

Arrest

15.  On 17 December 2024, Police arrested D for the offence of Burglary.

Defendant’s Immigration Status & Travel Index Check

16.  D is a Two-Way Permit holder.  According to the travel index check conducted by the Immigration Department, D came to Hong Kong and committed Charges 1 and 2 within three hours of entry into Hong Kong, and departed on the same day respectively. He committed Charge 3 on the next day after entered Hong Kong and departed after pawning the Rolex Watch two days later.

Defendant’s Backgrounds and Mitigation

17.  D is 49 years old, born in Anhui in Mainland China on 18 February 1977.  He received education up to Primary 5 level. Prior to his arrest, he worked as a construction worker, earning between RMB 6,000 and 8,000 per month. He is single and residing with his elderly parents, both nearing 80, in Anhui. He has a clear criminal record prior to the present offences.

18.  Mr CHEUNG, representing D, referred to HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai[1] and 2 other District Court cases[2], and submitted in mitigation that the starting point for Burglary of non-domestic premises, without aggravating or mitigating features, is 2 years 6 months. Mr CHEUNG submitted that D is not a professional burglar, he acted alone and by simple acts, clearly lacking any sophistication, but accepted that all 3 offences were committed soon after his entry into Hong Kong, followed soon by his departure. Also, the commission of multiple offences may affect his sentence both as aggravating factor, as well as totality. D is remorseful and asks the Court for leniency, promises not to re-offend. D hopes he can quickly serve out his sentence, so that he can return home to look after his parents.

Sentence

19.  It is well established that the starting point for Burglary involving non-domestic premises is 2 years 6 months imprisonment[3].

20.  In Cheng Wai Kai[4], the CA stated:

“15. The starting point can be adjusted upwards if there are aggravating circumstances such as; (1)  the offence is carefully planned and skilfully executed involving the use of heavy instrument or equipment; (2)  the offence is committed by two or more people; (3)  the offence targets at substantial premises and involves substantial properties; (4)  the offender is a professional burglar and not just an opportunist; (5)  the offender has previous convictions, particularly previous conviction of similar nature, and (6)  the offender commits multiple offences.

16. If the offences were committed in different premises against different victims on different dates, consecutive sentences should be imposed…”

21.  The properties stolen in Charges 2 & 3, while not of substantial value, is certainly not small. There may well be an element of personal sentimental value to the victims. I also consider that D’s acts in committing the offences involved some planning, but a degree of premeditation and planning is already built into the conventional starting point. Therefore, I agree with Mr CHEUNG that of the 6 aggravating factors listed by the CA, only (6)  is engaged.  However, the facts clearly show that the main purpose of D coming to Hong Kong was to commit the relevant offence on each occasion. This, I consider, is a separate and distinct aggravating factor[5].

22.  Taking all relevant matters into consideration, I adopt 3 years as the starting point for each offence. For the timely guilty plea, I will reduce the sentence by 1/3 to 2 years. There is no other mitigating factor warranting further reduction in sentence.

23.  The 3 offences were committed in different premises against different victims on different dates. According to the CA in Cheng Wai Kai, consecutive sentences should be imposed. Taking totality principle into account, I consider a total starting point of 4 years, reduced to 32 months on his guilty pleas, is sufficient to reflect the overall criminality of D in this case.

24.  For the 3 offences D is convicted of, he is sentenced as follows:

Charge 1 : 24 months

Charge 2 : 24 months, 4 months consecutive to Charge 1

Charge 3 : 24 months, 4 months consecutive to Charge 1

Total sentence : 32 months.