HKSAR v. ANTHONY THERESIA OLWI

DCCC 791/2025

[2026] HKDC 705

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 791 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to 4 charges. Charge 1 is for the offence of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Charge 2 is for the offence of attempting to obtain property by deception, contrary to section 17(1)  of the Theft ordinance, Cap. 210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. Charges 3 and 4 are each for the offence of obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 17(1)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. The defendant also admits the Summary of Facts presented by the Prosecution. Upon her plea and admission of facts, she is convicted of all charges.

The Admitted Facts

2.  Since November 2024, Mr. Howard (“PW1”)  had been using a MasterCard credit card with a specific card number (“the Card”)  issued to him by the Standard Chartered Bank Limited with a credit limit of about HK$38,000.

3.  At around 11 p.m. on 17 January 2025, when PW1 was having a drink with his friends in a restaurant in Wyndham Street, Central, he noted that the Card was kept in his cardholder (“the Cardholder”)  which was placed in the front pocket of his trousers. 

4.  At around 1 a.m. on 18 January 2025, PW1 together with his friends visited a bar in Hollywood Road. At about 2 a.m., PW1 left the bar and walked back to his residence.  At that time, he still had the Cardholder with him, but he did not check whether the Card was still inside, but he had not at any time after 11 p.m. on 17 January 2025 lent or authorized anyone to use the Card.

5.  At 3:19 a.m. on 18 January 2025, inside the 7-Eleven Convenience Shop at Ground Floor, No. 37 Cochrane Street, Central (“Shop 1”), the defendant produced the Card to the shopkeeper Chang Wun Yee (“PW2”)  at the cashier register and attempted to use it to purchase a box of liquor, i.e. one bottle of Hennessy XO Cognac (700 ml), at the price of HK$2,030.  Pursuant to the company policy for credit card transactions exceeding HK$1,000, PW2 asked the defendant for identification verification.  The defendant refused (Charge 2).  The defendant then used the Card to purchase a pack of cigarettes at the price of HK$102, and left the shop afterwards (Charge 3).  PW2 felt suspicious and made a report to the police.  The incident was captured by CCTV inside Shop 1.

6.  At 3:22 a.m. on 18 January 2025, inside another 7-Eleven Convenience Shop at Lower Ground Floor, No. 15 Cochrane Street, Central (“Shop 2”), the defendant produced the Card to the shopkeeper Chan Cham Man (“PW3”)  at the cashier register, and used it to make two purchases one after the other.  She first purchased a box of liquor, i.e. one bottle of Hennessy VSOP Cognac (700 ml), at the price of HK$568.  She then purchased another box of liquor, i.e. two bottles of Hennessy VSOP Cognac (350 ml), also at the price of HK$568.  She left the shop afterwards. The incident was captured by CCTV inside Shop 2.

7.  At 3:25 a.m. on 18 January 2025, a team of plain-clothes police officers intercepted the defendant for enquires when she was walking with two females in Lyndhurst Terrace, Central.  At that time, the defendant was carrying a plastic bag containing the two boxes of liquor that she bought in Shop 2.  During a subsequent body search, the Card dropped from the defendant (Charge 1).  She was arrested for theft.

8.  At around 8:30 a.m. on 18 January 2025, PW1 received a call from the Standard Chartered Bank Limited regarding the transactions that had been made with the Card during the early hours of that day.  PW1 then realized that the Card was missing.

9.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted under caution that she had used the Card to purchase cigarettes and liquor from Shop 1 and Shop 2.  She denied stealing anything and claimed to know PW1 and to have his contact number stored in her phone.  However, when she was requested to do so, she failed to retrieve PW1’s number from her phone.

10.  The defendant is and was at the time when she committed the offences in question a Form 8 holder.

11.  Mr. Tracy, learned counsel for the defendant, informs this Court that the defendant pleads guilty on the basis that “on the night in question, the defendant and PW1 were amongst a group of people who were drinking at the same bar.  PW1 then became heavily intoxicated, which presented the defendant with an opportunity to take his credit card, which she did”.  The defendant confirms that she admits these facts.  Miss Yeung, Counsel-on-fiat, takes no issue with the defendant.

Criminal record

12.  The defendant was sentenced by the Courts on two occasions involving a total of 3 charges.  On 16 August 2011, she was sentenced to concurrent terms of 6 weeks’ imprisonment for the two offences of soliciting for an immoral purpose and breach of condition of stay.  On 22 October 2012, she was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for the offence of handling stolen goods.  She has not previously been convicted of theft or any offence involving misuse of credit card.

Personal and family background

13.  The defendant is now 41 years old.  She was born on 29 January 1985 in Tanzania.  She was raised by her parents in Tanzania, and received education there up to Form 6.  Her parents have already passed away.  She has a brother and a sister still living in Tanzania. 

14.  The defendant is single, but she gave birth to a daughter before she left Tanzania for Hong Kong, leaving her daughter to be raised by her brother and sister in Tanzania.  Her daughter is now 21 years old.

15.  The defendant came to Hong Kong as a visitor in or around 2011.  Mr. Tracy informed this Court that a human trafficker brought the defendant from Guangzhou to Hong Kong. The trafficker threatened to harm her unless she paid the sums claimed by the trafficker for bringing her to Hong Kong.  The defendant then fled away from the trafficker. She later learned that the trafficker had vowed to harm her if she returned to her home country.  As a result, she applied for asylum in Hong Kong by making a “non-refoulement” claim shortly after she had served her first sentence, and has remained in Hong Kong since.  The defendant is therefore a Form 8 holder.  She is unemployed, and is supported by International Social Service which provides her with a flat to live together with other people since 2021.  The defendant’s “non-refoulement” claim was rejected and her appeal to the Torture Claim Appeal Board was likewise rejected. She applied for judicial review of the Appeal Board’s decision but failed.  She intends to file an appeal.

16.  The defendant has been suffering from hypertension and a heart condition for 4 years.  She is receiving specialist treatment at Queen Elizabeth Hospital.  She has been in a very supportive stable and caring relationship in Hong Kong for a long period of years.

Mitigation

17.  In his mitigation for the defendant, Mr. Tracy refers to 4 cases to assist this Court in arriving at the correct sentence against the defendant.  These cases include The Queen v Chan Sui-to[1], HKSAR v Lam See Chung Stephen[2], HKSAR v Li Chi-yat[3], and HKSAR v Dhaliwal Jaspreet Kaur[4]. He submits that the defendant had by her offences obtained property worth only HK$1,238 which was obviously a small sum according to the cases, and that the defendant has pleaded guilty.  He submits that although there are 4 charges in this case, they stemmed from one single course of conduct on the part of the defendant when she used just one credit card, which was a genuine card, within an hour or so on the same day.  He submits that on the facts of the present case, a totality of 18 months’ imprisonment will be the sufficient punishment.

18.  Mr. Tracy also produces defendant’s letter of mitigation.  In the letter, the defendant says that she expresses her deep regret and apologizes for committing the offences. She refers to her over one-year detention waiting for sentence, and says that she is going through the most difficult period of her life in this period, especially when she had to go through a surgery for hernia, and is suffering serious heart problems whilst she was in custody.  She vows that she has changed to be a better person.  She expresses her wishes to be with her family and become a productive member of society upon her release from prison.

Reasons for sentence

19.  In the present case, when the defendant with others was having a drink in the bar with PW1 who was heavily intoxicated, the defendant made use of the opportunity to take his credit card, and used it to make purchases shortly thereafter within an hour or so from two convenience shops.  She failed to use the victim’s credit card to buy a box of liquor worth HK$2,030, but managed to purchase property worth a total of HK$1,238 including a pack of cigarettes and two boxes of liquor.  It must be accepted that these were small-value purchases within one single shopping spree, and did not involve any international element.  The potential loss was also small because the victim’s credit card had a credit limit of HK$38,000 only.  The defendant also committed the offences alone, and not as a member of a syndicate.

20.  From the numerous judgments given by the Court of Appeal, while it is inevitable for this Court to impose a prison sentence on the defendant because of the need to deter the commission of credit card offences, a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment or less will be the appropriate sentence for first-time offenders who use or possess two to four genuine or counterfeit credit cards and make purchases of goods worth not more than HK$15,000[5].

21.  There are no special circumstances in the offences committed by the defendant, and there are no exceptionally strong mitigating factors in the present case that renders the general sentencing approach not applicable.  I rule that a term of immediate imprisonment is the only appropriate sentencing option in this case. 

22.  In respect of Charge 1, i.e. theft of the Card from the victim, I adopt a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment.  The fact that the victim was heavily intoxicated, thereby providing the defendant with the opportunity to steal from him, just explains why the defendant committed the offence, but does not diminish the criminalities of the offence.

23.  In respect of each of Charges 2, 3 and 4, in line with the authorities and bearing in mind that the purchases made by the defendant had been recovered, I adopt a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment.  The sentences for these charges will run concurrently.

24.  The fact that the defendant was a Form 8 holder when she committed these offences enhances the criminalities of her offences.  As a result, her sentences will be enhanced.

25.  Accordingly, in respect of Charge 1, the starting point will be adjusted upward to 10.5 months’ imprisonment.  In respect of each of Charges 2, 3 and 4, the starting point will be adjusted upward to 27 months’ imprisonment.

26.  There is no other aggravating feature that increases the sentences any further.

27.  On the mitigation side, I note the defendant’s personal and family circumstances including her claim that she was a victim of human trafficking, as well as her health problems. I find that they are not factors that may reduce an otherwise appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant because when she committed the offences in question, she had already had her health problems, and she had abused the hospitality extended to her by the Hong Kong society for the past 20 years or so even if she were really a victim of human trafficking, she should not have done anything to disturb the law and order condition in Hong Kong.

28.  The only mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s timely guilty plea.  She is entitled to the usual one-third discount of each of the sentences.

29.  For reasons aforesaid, the defendant is sentenced as follows:

Charge 1 7 months’ imprisonment,

Charge 2 18 months’ imprisonment,

Charge 3 18 months’ imprisonment,

Charge 4 18 months’ imprisonment.

30.  As far as the overall sentence is concerned, I am of the view that the sentence for the theft offence (Charge 1)  should not run wholly concurrently with the 3 deception offences through the use or attempted use of the stolen credit card (Charges 2, 3 and 4).  As ruled by the Court of Appeal in Li Chi-yat, theft of the credit card was a separate and distinct criminal act on the part of the defendant from her subsequent fraudulent use of the credit card, and therefore warranted a partially consecutive sentence to reflect the true culpability of the defendant.

31.  For this reason, while I shall order that the sentences for Charges 2, 3 and 4 are to run concurrently, 3 months of the sentence for Charge 1 shall run consecutively to the concurrent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment on Charges 2, 3 and 4.

32.  In other words, the defendant is to serve a total of 21 months’ imprisonment for these 4 offences.