HKSAR v. NAVARRO MYLENE RODRIGUEZ

DCCC 1506/2025

[2026] HKDC 886

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1506 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant was charged with one count of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210; and 6 counts of fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. The defendant pleaded guilty, admitted the facts and was convicted accordingly.

FACTS

2.  On 23 November 2024, around 4 am, the victim got drunk after drinking at a bar and met D when he was walking around Tsim Sha Tsui.  D offered to rest with the victim at a hotel together.  Upon entering Room A2 at Rainbow City Inn, victim fell asleep and D took the opportunity to steal the following items around 6 am on the same day from the victim:

(1)  a wallet containing his HKID, Mainland Travel Permit, driver’s license, cash $2,000 and 5 bank cards (including one Standard Chartered Master credit (SC card), one AE credit card (AE card)  and one HSBC Master credit card (HSBC card));

(2)  a Samsung phone, worth $5,000; and

(3)  a Rolex watch, worth HK$60,000.

3.  Subsequently, D together with another male, used the aforesaid credit cards to make the following unauthorized transactions on the same day:

Charge	Time	Merchant	Amount	Payment Method
2	7:54 am	7/11	$ 292.5	SC card
	7:56 am	7/11	$1,000	SC card
	7:56 am	7/11	$1,000	SC card
3	8:00 am	7/11	$ 204	HSBC card
4	unclear	Circle K	$ 204	SC card
	8:00 am	Circle K	$ 500	SC card
	8:00 am	Circle K	$ 500	SC card
5	unclear	McDonald’s	$ 138	SC card
6	8:22 am	7/11	$ 227	HSBC card
7	8:47 am	Wellcome	$2,000	AE card
	8:48 am	Wellcome	$ 214	AE card

4.  On 16 December 2024, D was arrested and admitted under caution that she stole victim’s phone, watch, wallet and credit cards out of greed.  In a subsequent cautioned recorded interview, she said she was with a male Mohammad (WP)  when they saw victim was drunk and sitting outside a bar.  WP instructed her to steal from the victim and she brought the victim to a guesthouse and stole his properties.   She went to convenience stores with WP to shop with the victim’s credit cards.  WP kept all the stolen items and the items they purchased with the victim’s credit cards and gave her $3,000.

MITIGATION

5.  D aged 50, married her second husband in 2019, she has three children from her previous marriage. She lived with her children, and her husband at time of arrest. She first came to Hong Kong in 2013 as a foreign domestic helper and overstayed after her visa expired.  She made a non-refoulement claim in 2013.  She had two previous conviction, two counts of breach of condition of stay in 2013 and one count of theft in 2014. 

6.  D’s husband is a Hong Kong resident, she is currently on a dependent visa from her husband.   She was working as a waitress earning about $25,000 per month at time of arrest.  She has tried her best effort to compensate the victim $5,000.  D submits mitigation letter to show her remorse.  Her three children also submit mitigation letters to show their support and they believe their mother was influenced by others but has deeply reflected her misdeeds during remand and urge the court to impose a lenient sentence.

7.  The defendant is profoundly remorseful and accepts responsibility for her misdeeds.   She has indicated her guilty plea on 26 February 2026 and has been co-operative with the police and made full admissions to all the offences, thus entitle to the full 1/3 discount for her timely guilty plea.  D acknowledges that in cases of this nature, the court have been reluctant to impose wholly concurrent sentences but the defence urges the court to consider wholly concurrent sentence for charges 2 to 7.

Sentence

8.  Any person who commits theft and fraud liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for 10 years and 14 years respectively. 

9.  The defence refers to HKSAR v Li Chi Yat CACC 189/2018, the Court of Appeal stated that:

“small scale credit card offences cannot be subjected to strict guidelines because they can vary significantly in a number of ways and that a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate. (Paragraph 21)

we should point out, however, that credit card fraud offences require deterrent sentences in order to protect the integrity of the credit card system and to punish the offender for the loss and inconvenience to the credit card company and the cardholder, as the case may be. (Paragraph 22)”

10.  Li Chi Yat was a case of credit card fraud at the low end of the scale of criminality.  The appellant was acting alone in stealing opportunistically a single genuine credit card with which he subsequently used or attempted to use on three occasions on one single day. Thereafter, there were no further attempts to use the credit card.  He successfully used the card to purchase an item in the sum of a little under $8,000 after two failed attempts to purchase other items, one before the successful transaction in the sum of about $10,000 and one after in the sum of about $7,000.  The potential loss, as represented by the credit card limit, was $20,000.   There was no planning, or any aggravating factors that would elevate the criminality to a higher level of seriousness.  

11.  The Court of Appeal in Li Chi Yat found that a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment on each of the deception charges would be appropriate, and upheld the sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment (a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment)  on the theft charge of which 3 months run consecutively to the concurrent sentences of the deception charges.

12.  As the defence observes, D’s case on the theft charge is more serious than a theft by finding case and indeed more serious than a pickpocketing case as it involves taking a drunk victim to a hotel room to commit the theft.  Moreover, digital phone, cash and a Rolex watch (a total of $67,000 worth of property and cash), identification document and 5 credit cards were stolen from the victim after he fell asleep.  I consider the appropriate starting point of the theft charge is one of 30 months imprisonment.  

13.  For the credit card fraud, D together with WP or let WP to use 3 of the stolen credit cards to make 11 purchases at different stores, the amount involved ranging from $204 to $2,000, making a total of $6,279.50.  I consider the appropriate starting for each count to be 27 months imprisonment.  

14.  The subsequent fraudulent use of the Card could be considered as one transaction, whereas the theft was a separate and distinct criminal act on the part of the defendant.  An overall starting point of 3.5 years’ imprisonment would be required to reflect the overall criminality.  The defendant is entitled to 1/3 discount for her plea and I allow a further 1-month reduction for her best endeavor to compensate the victim $5,000. I do not consider there to be any further mitigation factor.   That being the case, I order 10 months of Charge 1 to run consecutively to the concurrent sentences of Charge 2 to 7. 

ORDER

Charge 1 20 months’ imprisonment, 10 months consecutive with Charge 2 - 7

Charge 2 - 7 17 months’ imprisonment, concurrent with each other, making a total of 27 months.