HKSAR v. CHEN YONGLONG AND ANOTHER

DCCC907/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 907 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendants, you were convicted upon your guilty pleas of one charge of theft with which you were jointly charged.

2.  In sentencing I take into account the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, your background and mitigation put forward on your behalf.

3.  The facts you admitted are straightforward and may be summarised as follows.

4.  Both of you are PRC citizens.  You arrived in Hong Kong as visitors on 23 June 2011.  On the same date the two of you attended an International Jewellery Exhibition held at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre.  You stole one box containing cash of US$104,230 kept under a showcase at the booth.

5.  D1, you said under caution that it was D2 who took the box and the two of you shared the money contained inside.  D2, you admitted under caution to have stolen the box containing cash and shared the money with D1.  Both of you said each of you had obtained about US$17,000 to US$18,000 and had lost all the money in gambling.

6.  D1, I was told that you are 54 years of age.  You received minimal education and are a farmer, your wife is also a farmer.  You have three children age range from 16 to 20, all students.  I was also told that your elderly father does not enjoy good health and money is required to take care of him. 

7.  The prosecution informed the court and you agreed that on four previous occasions you have been convicted of a total of six charges of theft.  The first conviction took place in 2001 and the last in February 2006.  On the last occasion, for three offences of theft, you were sentenced to a total of 4 months’ imprisonment. 

8.  D2, you are a first time offender.  I was told that you are 37 years of age and also a farmer.  You are also married and have three children aged between 10 and 15, all studying.  Same as D1, you faced financial difficulties.  In the circumstances, you came to Hong Kong to earn some quick money.  Your counsel stressed that you have frankly admitted to have taken the money. 

9.  Though I have the suspicion that the two of you attended the Jewellery Exhibition up to no good but there is no proper basis for me to sentence you on the premises that this particular offence was premeditated. There is no evidence to show that the offence involved sophisticated conduct. The facts revealed a case of you taking advantage of the lack of care on the part of those who have the custody of the cash. 

10.  In all the circumstances, I am of the view that an immediate custodial sentence is called for.  Though it was D2 who took the physical act of taking the box, I do not see there exists anything so material as to distinguish the degree of culpability between the two of you.

11.  D1, whilst as your counsel said, you took a less active role, I cannot ignore that this was a case of joint enterprise.

12.  In my judgement a starting point of 24 months is sufficient to reflect the nature and degree of seriousness of this case. 

13.  However, D1, since it is the seventh offence of theft you are convicted, I am of the view that an extra 3 months is justified.

14.  I therefore adopt the following starting points:

D1: 27 months;

D2: 24 months.

15.  Both of you pleaded guilty and are entitled to a one-third discount for this factor.     

15. In all the circumstance, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount you are entitled to. Although both of you might have a deprived background, destitution is seldom regarded as a mitigation and I do not consider the present case an exception. By reason of the matters aforesaid, D1, I sentence you to 18 months’ imprisonment, and D2, 16 months’ imprisonment.