HKSAR v. KARUN SUGIANTO also known as ILHAM AND OTHERS

DCCC 557/2025

[2026] HKDC 652

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 557 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  In this hearing there are three defendants, namely, Karun Sugianto, D1; Ghani Pratama, D2 and Faaiza Ishak, D3. On the indictment, there are three counts of theft, one count of attempted theft, and five counts of offences under the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, Laws of Hong Kong.

2.  The defendants are found guilty by this court upon their plea and admission of facts in respect of the charges they faced.  The four counts of dishonestly related offences were, in fact, a species of pickpocketing in the streets.  What is common amongst these cases, (except perhaps maybe Charge 1, which D2 alone faced,)  there was evidence of pre-meditation and planned joint effort by the defendants named in the charges.

3.  All three defendants were jointly charged with Charges 3 and 4, whereas D1 and D2 were charged in Charge 2, and D2 alone faced Charge 1.

4.  The three defendants were not Hong Kong residents.  They have no connection to Hong Kong, and the only conclusion I could arrive at was that they came to Hong Kong specifically to commit the crimes.  This is a relevant matter because the Court of Appeal has pointed out that this could be an aggravating factor in considering their culpability in the charges they faced.

Charge 1 (Theft, against D2 only)

5.  At about 3 pm on 16^th day of July 2024, the victim (V1), exchanged money in Shanghai Street, with D2 in the same shop looking on.  After obtaining HK$20,200 in cash, V1 put the cash inside her backpack and proceeded to visit a pharmacy in the same area with D2 following behind.

6.  It was after she finished shopping that she found the cash she put in her backpack had gone missing.  The CCTV devices in the vicinity showed that D2 attempted to steal from her backpack, and subsequently D2 also admitted that he was the one who stole the cash.

Charge 2 (Theft against D1 and D2)

7.  On 28 August 2024, at about noon, the victim (V2), withdrew $90,000 in cash from a bank in Nathan Road and kept it in his shoulder bag.  He then went to go shopping in a crowded vegetable shop in Mong Kok.  Unbeknownst to him, D1 and D2 had been following him, D2 then stole the cash from his shoulder bag and passed it on to D1.

Charge 3 (Theft against all defendants)

8.  At about 2.30 a.m. on 26 September 2024, after the victim (V3)  withdrew US$900 and AUD$980 from his account in a bank in North Point, he put the cash inside his backpack. 

9.  About 16 minutes later, the CCTV devices in the vicinity recorded the three defendants in the vicinity together.  D2 was seen to reach into V3’s backpack and took away the foreign currencies.  The trio then left together. It was only a few minutes later that V3 realised that someone had opened his backpack and stolen his money.

Charge 4 (Attempted theft, against all three defendants)

10.  On the 4^th day of October 2024, the victim, an elderly gentleman (V4), withdrew about $30,000 from his bank in Tuen Mun Town Plaza.  He then put the cash inside his shoulder bag.  V4 then went to use the restroom on the 1^st floor of the shopping mall.  When he was on the way out, D1 walked slowly in front of him and blocked his way.  He also felt that someone touched his shoulder bag.

11.  V4 proceeded to a shopping mall nearby.  While he was taking the escalator, he was being followed by D1 to D3.  At some point, D1 stood behind him while D2 and D3 walked past.  When V4 turned around and took the escalator back to the 3^rd floor, the three defendants followed suit.  While V4 was on the escalator, D3 suddenly stopped walking, while D2 deliberately bumped into V4 who felt someone tampering with his shoulder bag.  At the time, D1 and D2 were behind him.

12.  The antics of the trio were under the observation of a police officer in plain clothes nearby, who then stopped and arrested the three defendants.  The defendants admitted that they had attempted to steal from V4.

Charge 5 against D2

13.  During the subsequent investigation, it was revealed that D2 had come to Hong Kong in June, July, and before his arrest on 16 September.  On 28 August 2024, he had already left Hong Kong.  Therefore, he had no permission to remain in Hong Kong, and his presence must have been via illegal means.  He was charged with Count 5 of the indictment.

Charges 6 – 9 against D1

14.  D1 under the name of Ilham had been convicted of an offence of pickpocketing in Hong Kong.  He was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment.  He was also subject to a deportation order issued on 25 October 2011. 

15.  D1 then adopted a different identity, by the name of Karun Sugianto.  He came to Hong Kong under that name on four different occasions.  Therefore, he was charged with four counts of breach of deportation order.

Charge 6

16.  D1 arrived on 2 June 2024, and departed on 13 June 2024.

Charge 7

17.  D1 arrived on 28 July 2024, and departed on 11 August 2024.

Charge 8

18.  D1 arrived on 26 August 2024, and departed on 8 September 2024.

Charge 9

19.  D1 arrived in Hong Kong on 21 September 2024.  On 4 October of the same year he was arrested in respect of Charge 4.

20.  D3 came to Hong Kong on 21 September.

21.  The police also checked the Octopus cards of the defendants.  All had identical travel patterns on 4 October and on 26 September.

Discussions

22.  All the charges in relation to dishonesty are what is commonly referred to as pickpocketing. There are clear guidelines as set out in the case of HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy, [2005] 2 HKLRD 1. 

23.  Generally, the starting point should be 12 to 15 months immediate custodial sentence after trial.  However, the Court of Appeal also identified certain aggravating factors for which this court should take into consideration in sentencing.  The relevant ones in the present case are:

(1)  the offences, except for Charge 1, appear to be committed in concert and with pre-meditation;

(2)  the offence was committed in crowded areas such as shopping malls, shopping areas;

(3)  at least in respect of Charges 2 to 4, the named defendants had acted in an organised manner. It appeared that they had chosen their victims in places such as banks, and after seeing the victims had a large amount of cash with them, they would follow the victims and acted together, divert, the victims’ attention before stealing from them.

(4)  the offences were committed within short periods of time;

(5)  all the offenders had no connection to Hong Kong. They came to Hong Kong with no clear purpose. The only conclusion I can arrive at was that they came to Hong Kong for the sole purpose of committing the present offences;

(6)  in respect of Charges 1, 2 and 3, all the money stolen were said to have been spent or sent back to Indonesia.

24.  Although, compared to other commercial fraud cases, the amounts were not that significant.  The sums were, nonetheless, quite  substantial and not the kind of money people would carry with them on their daily business.

25.  The victims were left with no recourse because obviously the defendants were not in a position to repay them.

26.  In respect of the offences under the Immigration Ordinance, the maximum penalty runs to 7 years.  For the offence of breach of deportation order, in the case of HKSAR v Vu Thi Wan Ah [2000] 2 HKLRD 284, the court of appeal a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment.

27.  In respect of unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong, again, there are clear authorities to the effect that the normal sentence after trial should be 15 months. 

28.  Although the 4^th charge is one of attempt, the culpability is the same. The crime had not been completed by reason of the vigilance of a law enforcement officer.  Therefore, the culpability is the same as the completed offence.

D1’s sentence

29.  D1 in this case is convicted of three counts of dishonesty related offence, and four counts of breach of a deportation order.  All the three theft related cases, they were conducted in concert with other defendants, and from his movement record, and his previous conviction, it was seen that he came to Hong Kong for the specific purpose of committing the crimes in question.

30.  For the 2^nd count, as he acted in concert with D2, and the offence was committed in a crowded place, I will adopt a higher starting point of 21 months.  It is reduced to 14 months by his plea.

31.  In respect of Charges 3 and 4, D2 had committed the offence within a short span of time, and also in concert with other defendants.  The sums stolen, (or to be stolen), are substantial.  So in respect of Charge 3, I will adopt 24 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.  In respect of the 4^th charge, 30 months.  Charge 3 will be reduced to 16 months by reason of a plea.  Charge 4 will be 30 months, reduced to 20 months.

32.  Having considered his previous record, the purpose of his visit to Hong Kong, and the fact alluded to hereto earlier in these reasons, I would order that 6 months of the 2^nd and the 3^rd count to run consecutive to the 4^th count.  So in respect of the three counts of theft/attempted theft, in all, he is to serve a total of 32 months.

33.  In respect of the four counts of breach of deportation order, from his movement records, and the fact it was repeated, I concluded that it was a blatant defiance of our court orders, and also the sole purpose of the visits to Hong Kong seems to be committing crimes here.  Therefore, I order that for each count he is to serve a sentence of 15 months.  10 months of the order to run consecutively to take into account of the Totality Principle making a total of 42 months.

D2’s sentence

34.  The 2^nd defendant committed the 1^st offence alone (or at least there is no evidence to show that he or other defendants were present when the offence was committed.)  There is evidence to show that he had identified the victim after V1 had cashed the money in a money exchange shop.  He then followed her while she continued to go shopping.  In the process, stole money from her.  I will adopt a starting point of 18 months, reduced to 12 months to reflect his guilty plea.

35.  For the 2^nd offence, for reasons already stated, since it was committed jointly with another defendant, and that it was committed within a short span of time, I would adopt 21 months imprisonment as a starting point, reduced now to 14 months to reflect his guilty plea in respect of Charge 3 and Charge 4, I will adopt, respectively, a starting point of 24 months and 30 months.  They are in turn reduced to 16 and 20 months’ imprisonment to reflect his guilty plea.

36.  Having taken into account the Totality Principle, I will order four months of the first three counts to run consecutive to the 4^th count, making a total of 32 months.

37.  In respect of the 5^th count, I will order 15 months’ imprisonment.  That is after taking into account of his guilty plea, but also the fact that he had come to Hong Kong apparently for the purpose of committing crimes.  But having considered the Totality Principle, I will order 10 months to run consecutive to the other 32 months, making a total of imprisonment of 42 months.

D3’s sentence

38.  D3 in this case committed the 3^rd and the 4^th offence with other people and in rapid succession.  I will, therefore, adopt the same starting point of 24 months and 30 months, respectively.  They are reduced to 16 and 20 months with 8 months of the 3^rd count to run consecutive to the 4^th count, making a total of 28 months.

Mitigation

39.  I have read the written mitigations from defence counsel.  I have taken into account of the personal circumstances of the defendants and considered that not valid mitigating factors; as the personal circumstances rarely are mitigating factors.

40.  It was pointed out by counsel for D1 that the defendant had, “limited educational attainment”, with no specialised vocational skill and had to start work early in Indonesia.  He could not secure steady employment and came to Hong Kong in the hope of securing gainful employment.

41.  I note that the defendant came to Hong Kong after adopting a new identity, and his repeated visits to Hong Kong makes his contention that he came to Hong Kong in an attempt to secure work incredible.  I conclude that apart from his plea of guilty, there was no valid mitigating factor to warrant further reduction in sentencing.

42.  In the case of D2, his financial strains at home is not a valid mitigating.  And according to his counsel, he came to Hong Kong through illegal means from China.  Again, I do not see any valid reason why it should be a mitigating factor, except to infer that he came to Hong Kong in breach of the local law was obviously for the purpose of committing crime.  I do not see any valid mitigating factor in his favour.

43.  Likewise, in the case of D3, she had a clear record, and her circumstances was no valid mitigating factor.  A lot of honest people working in Hong Kong are also under great financial strain.  I agree that according to the facts available, she played a relatively minor role, but this has been reflected in the sentence she was ordered.

44.  It was pointed out by counsel for D3 that she acted merely as a lookout, and also worked as diverting attention of the victim by obstructing their way. Since she was jointly charged with other defendants, the fact that she did not actually steal from the victims does not reduce her culpability.  Therefore, again, there are not other relevant mitigating factors apart from her plea of guilty.

45.  So in all, D1 is sentenced to a total of 47 months’ imprisonment.  D2, 42 months, D3, 28 months.