HKSAR v. SISKA TYARA

DCCC 979/2021

[2022] HKDC 1041

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 979 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 3 charges:-

(a)  Theft of 2 watches, one wrist chain, one necklace with pendant and one ring. Total value of about $605,000.

(b)  Obtaining property by deception, by falsely representing that she was PW1, the genuine card holder of credit card A to buy one Google Play gift card $1,000.

(c)  Obtaining property by deception, by falsely representing that she was PW1, the genuine card holder of credit card B to buy one google play gift card of $500.

Summary of facts

2.  The defendant was employed as a domestic helper in PW1’s family.

3.  In March 2021, PW1 found out that the jewellery and 2 watches in charge 1 have gone missing.

4.  In July 2021, PW1 noticed from the credit card statement that there were transactions on 8^th July2021 for $1,000 and 17^th July 2021 for $500.

5.  Upon enquiry with the respective credit card companies, PW1 found out the transactions were taken place in 7-Eleven convenience store in Austin Avenue and Circle K convenience store in Bowring Street respectively.

6.  On 24^th July 2021, the defendant admitted that she has stolen the missing items from PW1.

7.  Two “Google Play” stored-value cards were found underneath a mattress in the defendant’s room.

8.  The defendant admitted under caution in a record of interview that:-

(a)  She had stolen the items as stated in charge 1;

(b)  She passed on the stolen properties to a woman in a restaurant in Yau Ma Tei;

(c)  She used cards A and B to purchase the 2 “Google Play” stored-value cards a total sum of $1,500.

Criminal record

9.  The defendant has a clear record

Mitigation

10.  The defendant is now 30 years old.  Her parents passed away when she was a teenager.  She lived with her grandmother.  In 2015, her boyfriend left her after she gave birth to a son.

11.  The defendant committed the present offences due to financial pressure at home as her grandmother had fallen ill and she needed money to meet the medical expenses.  Now she wishes to return to Indonesia as soon as possible.

12.  The case was originally set down for plea on 10^th March 2022, but due to the GAP order, the case has been refixed to today for hearing despite both sides of counsel requested an urgent hearing date as the defendant has been detained since her arrest.

13.  Now, she has been in custody for almost 14 months.

Sentence

14.  This is a case of breach of trust.  The defendant abused her position as a domestic helper to steal the items in PW1’s home and sold them to meet her own financial needs.

15.  Sometimes, these items have sentimental and emotional value and that can be greater that the monetary value itself.

16.  In Charge 1, the sum involved was about $605,000.

17.  In accordance with the case of HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776 that it falls into the sentencing bracket of 2 to 3 years when the amount is between $250,000 and $1 million.

18.  I therefore take a starting point of 2½ years, reduce to 20 months because of her guilty plea.

19.  As to Charges 2 and 3, I have been informed that PW1 provided her credit cards A and B for the defendant to buy her own grocery items and foods from time to time.

20.  As the amount in Charges 2 and 3 were $1,000 and $500 respectively.  I take a starting point of 3 months, reduce to 2 months after 1/3 discount.

21.  I ordered two weeks from each charge of 2 and 3 to run consecutively to Charge 1.  It arrives at a total of 20 months and 4 weeks.

Total Sentence

22.  Charge 1:  20 months.

Charge 2: 2 months, 2 weeks to run consecutively to Charge 1.

Charge 3: 2 months, 2 weeks to run consecutively to Charge 1.

TOTAL: Imprisonment for 20 months and 4 weeks.