HKSAR v. NARCISO MARIA FE CANDAR

DCCC 1325/2024

[2025] HKDC 1118

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1325 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charges

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to Charges 1 to 4.  Charge 1 is theft.  Charge 2, Charge 3 and Charge 4 are all fraud.

Facts

2.  Since 6 March 2023, the defendant had been hired by one Madam Au as a domestic helper.  The residence was that premises as stated in Charge 1.

3.  On 8 May 2024, Madam Au checked out her properties.  She used to keep her money and credit cards, including the Bank of China credit card in question in a locked cabinet drawer in her wardrobe.  She kept the only key.

4.  On 18 May 2024, between 2 and 5 pm approximately, there was no one in the premises.  CCTV captured the defendant returning to the premises but somehow the CCTV was cut off at some stage.

5.  The next day in the afternoon, the defendant used Madam Au’s Bank of China credit card to buy a meal at KFC for $36.  Later in the day, she used the same credit card to make two purchases at two jewellery shops in Central.  She bought a gold ring from each shop.  The first one cost $2,995.  The second one cost $2,440.

6.  In the same afternoon, the defendant pawned the two gold rings at a pawnshop in Central for $3,000.

7.  On 20 May 2024, Madam Au was alerted of the three transactions by messages sent from the bank.  She found she had lost her Bank of China credit card.  A report was made to the police.

8.  That day, ie 20 May 2024, the defendant was arrested at the premises.  The stolen credit card was found between the defendant’s bed and the wall inside her bedroom.  The pawnshop ticket was also found and there was $3,000 cash in the defendant’s wallet. 

9.  In an interview by the police, the defendant admitted she had stolen Madam Au’s credit card and used it.  She said she had pawned the two gold rings for $3,000.  The defendant told the police that she found the credit card in the laundry.

Record

10.  The defendant is a national of the Philippines.  She came to work as a domestic helper in Hong Kong.  She is 33 years of age now.  She has no criminal record in Hong Kong.  Counsel says the defendant also has no criminal record in the Philippines. 

Mitigation

11.  Defence counsel says the defendant was married in the Philippines and has two children.  She came to work as a domestic helper here first in 2019.  Then she returned to the Philippines and came again to work as a domestic helper in 2023 for Madam Au. Counsel says the defendant came to work in order to earn for her family in the Philippines.

12.  Counsel mentioned three cases:  (1)  HKSAR v Dhaliwal Jaspreet Kaur [2019] 5 HKLRD 428; (2)  Secretary for Justice v Nones;

Sentence

13.  The case involves the defendant’s breach of trust and her illicit use of Madam Au’s credit card.  She used the card to buy a meal of $36 and to purchase two gold rings from two different shops for $2,995 and $2,440 respectively.  She then pawned the two rings for $3,000. 

14.  The pawn proceeds of $3,000 were recovered.  The prosecutor says in court that an agreement has been reached among all parties as to how to deal with the money and the rings. 

15.  The defendant had no previous criminal record.  She pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity. 

16.  The Court of Appeal in Dhaliwal Jaspreet Kaur says the courts are right to take a strong line in sentencing for the illicit use of forged or stolen cards.  But the court also says there was a range of culpability of those cases. 

17.  The prosecution cannot say firmly that Madam Au had not misplaced her properties.  Thus, I have to accept the defendant’s saying that she found Madam Au’s credit card in the laundry. The theft of the card was opportunistic then. 

18.  Nevertheless, the defendant should return the credit card to Madam Au.  Yet, she out of greed used it to commit Charges 2 to 4, and she still had the card with her when the police found her.  Presumably, the defendant would use the card again if she were not caught in time. 

19.  The defendant’s finding of Madam Au’s credit card in the laundry might be opportunistic. But her subsequent dishonest use of the cards on three occasions was not. 

20.  The facts that would go to the defendant’s favour are that only relatively small values were involved in each of the three transactions.  The damage done to the parties concerned was minimal. 

21.  Taking all aspects of the case into consideration, I would lay down the following starting points. Charge 1, 9 months’ imprisonment; Charge 2, 6 months’ imprisonment; Charge 3, 12 months’ imprisonment; Charge 4, 12 months’ imprisonment. 

22.  The overall sentence of the four counts should be one of 24 months’ imprisonment as a starting point. Defendant is entitled to one-third discount for her early plea. 

23.  On Charge 1, the defendant is sent to prison for 6 months.  On Charge 2, she is sent to prison for 4 months.  On Charge 3, she is sent to prison for 8 months.  And on Charge 4, she is sent to prison for 8 months. 

24.  I order 2 months’ imprisonment of Charge 2 and 4 months of each of Charge 3 and Charge 4 to run consecutively to each other and also consecutively to the whole of the 6 months in Charge 1. The total sentence for the four charges after the defendant’s plea is one of 16 months’ imprisonment.