HKSAR v. DUCUSIN JENNIFER HERUELA

DCCC580/2025

[2026] HKDC 110

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 580 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The Defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of theft and admitted the facts accordingly.

The Prosecution case

2.  Ms Cheung (“PW1”), aged 65, she lives alone at a rented flat in Tseung Kwan O (“the Flat”).  She employed the Defendant as her domestic helper at the material time.

3.  Although the Defendant did not live at the Flat and lived elsewhere, the Defendant was given the keys to the Flat and would perform household chores thereat.  Between June and November 2024, the Defendant would from time to time stay at the Flat doing household chores while PW1 was not there.

4.  PW1 kept a safe in the Flat, the safe could be opened by using a password or unlocking with 2 keys simultaneously but she had misplaced the keys to the safe when she moved in the Flat.  PW1 confirmed that she was the only person in possession of the keys and knew of the password.  She last accessed the safe in early October 2024 using a password.

5.  On 2 November 2024, PW1 couldn’t open the safe with the password, a locksmith was summoned on 23 November 2024 but the locksmith said the safe was locked with keys and couldn’t be opened just by using the password.

6.  On 27 November 2024, another locksmith was engaged and the safe was opened this time. Upon opening, signs of ransacking were noticed.

7.  PW1 found the following items were gone missing:-

(a) Renminbi 25,000 yuan;

(b) Items of jewellery including 2 bracelets, 17 rings, 3 necklaces, 1 necklace with pendant, 5 pairs of earrings, 1 pendant, 9 wrist chains;

(c) 3 coins;

(d) 2 scarves;

(e) 1 handbag;

(f) 2 watches; and

(g) 1 scale.

8.  Case was reported to the police on 29 November 2024.

Pawnshops Enquiries Result

9.  Upon checking with various pawnshops, it was discovered that the Defendant had between 7 July 2024 and 28 November 2024 pawned 39 items (including jewelry, ornaments and watch) to 3 different pawnshops, namely Shing Fung Pawn Shop, Wah Wai Pawn Shop and Pawn Stars Pawn Shop. (Details of which could be found at Annex 1)

10.  The Defendant received $30,000 from Wah Wai, $119,200 from Pawn Stars, and record was not available from Shing Fung and the pawned items (1 pair of earrings and 1 bracelet valued at $44,000) could no longer be recovered.

Conclusion

11.  The Defendant had stolen the following items from her employer:-

(a) Two bracelets;

(b) 17 rings;

(c) Two necklaces;

(d) One necklace with pendant;

(e) Four pairs of earrings;

(f) Four pendants;

(g) Two gold coins;

(h) Six wrist chains; and

(i) One Rolex watch.

Valued at HK$645,481.

Mitigation and sentence

12.  The Defendant is now 41 years of age, she came to Hong Kong in 2020 and worked for PW1 as a domestic helper.

13.  She was married but her husband abandoned her in 2019, leaving her with her 3 children now aged 14, 17 & 18 respectively. She is the sole breadwinner of the family.

14.  In her plea in mitigation, she frankly admits her guilt and is now extremely remorseful.  The only reason she committed the present offence was her greed, she was under grave financial difficulty to support her family back home in the Philippines.

15.  Her lawyer does not shy away from the fact that this is a classic breach of trust case, the amount involved was very substantial, prison sentence is the only option.  It is only fortunate that most of the items could be recovered from the pawn shops, except 1 bracelet and 1 pair of earrings, sometimes sentimental valves of the lost items are greater than  that of the actual values.

16.  Moreover, I have been informed the victim is still in negotiation with the pawnshop owners as to the redemption price for the pawned items , that means the victim still has to bear the costs of getting the items back.  It isn’t quite the same as all the items been recovered and no loss suffered scenario, but I do bear in mind the fact that at most the victim has to pay $149,200 which is the total pawned amount by the Defendant, plus the 2 lost items that could no longer be recovered valued at $44,000. Unfortunately, the Defendant is not able to compensate the victim.

17.  As to the sentencing guidelines, stolen value between $250,000 to a million, 2-3 years’ imprisonment.

18.  Defence has submitted 3 cases of the District Court, I don’t intend to repeat them, suffice to say these are breach of trust cases, and the amount involved ranging from $400,000 to $540,000, a starting point of 26-27 months were adopted.  As to the recovery of the stolen properties, ranging from 28.25 to 33% and an extra 1 to 2 months reduction of sentence were adopted.

19.  Having considered all the submissions made and her personal circumstances, in particular her plead of guilty and she has a clear record, I will adopt a starting point of 30 months, and reduce it by a third making it a total of 20 months, I will further reduce the sentence by 2 months to reflect the actual lost suffered. She is therefore sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.

Annex