HKSAR V Manuel Roldan and Another

DCCC 184/2018

[2018] HKDC 870

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 184 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

Facts

1.This is a case of using somebody else’s credit card to buy some electronic goods.

2.The 1st defendant, having picked up (Charge 1: theft) someone else’s credit card in a restaurant, went to a nearby shop to purchase a laptop computer (Charge 2: deception). 

3.In the same afternoon, the 1st defendant visited the 2nd defendant at home, and subsequently they together went to some shops to purchase two laptop computers (Charges 3 and 4) and a guitar (Charge 5).

4.The above goods are each worth $1,000 to $9,000. The 1st defendant kept all of the goods except one laptop computer which was kept by the 2nd defendant.

Mitigation

5.Both defendants are 50 years old and are married.  They are Filipinos and they used to work in some restaurants in Hong Kong.

6.The 1st defendant has no criminal record, whereas the 2nd defendant has four drug-related convictions.  They are asking this court to be as lenient to them as possible.

Authorities

7.In the case of Tu I Lang [2007] HKLRD 403 at paragraph 10 the Court of Appeal stated:-

“Where the facts of the offence point to a small, unsophisticated operation involving only one or a few forged cards uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the offender to a larger operation, then a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment or less will be appropriate.”

8.This court will adopt 6 months’ imprisonment as a starting point for the theft charge and 2½ years’ imprisonment for each deception charge.

9.Full one-third discount will be given because both defendants pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

Sentence

10.This court sentences the defendants to prison. 

11.The 1st defendant, on Charge 1, for 4 months; Charge 2, 20 months; Charge 3, 20 months; Charge 4, 20 months; Charge 5, 20 months.  1 month from each of the Charges 1, 3, 4, 5 is to run consecutive to the imprisonment term of Charge 2.  The 1st defendant is therefore sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment in total today.

12.The 2nd defendant, on Charge 3, 20 months; Charge 4, 20 months; Charge 5, 20 months.  1 month from each of Charges 4 and 5 is to run consecutive to the imprisonment term of Charge 3.  The 2nd defendant is therefore sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment in total today.