HKSAR v. Sariah Agung Pamuji

DCCC 61/2022

[2022] HKDC 642

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 61 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of theft.

Admitted Facts

2.At the material times, the defendant was employed by Ms. Kong (“PW1”)  as a domestic helper. They lived at a flat in Island Resort, No 28 Siu Sai Wan Road, Siu Sai wan, Hong Kong ("Flat").

3.On 20 February 2021, PW1 placed 3 bracelets, 11 rings, 11 grains of gold, 3 pairs of earrings, 2 necklaces, 1 necklace with 1 pendant, 1 pendant, 1 watch and cash of HK$2,000 (valued at HK$408,000 in total, collectively “Items”)  inside the wardrobe in her bedroom.  In early April 2021, she checked that the Items were stored properly inside the wardrobe.

4.At about 6:00 pm on 30 October 2021, PW1 found the Items missing.  She reported the case to the police the next day.  When the police arrived at the Flat, the defendant surrendered 2 rings (valued at HK$1,000 in total)  to the police.  They were part of the Items stored in PW1's bedroom.  The defendant was arrested.

5.At a cautioned interview, the defendant admitted that:

(a)  She came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper in 1998. She started working for PW1 in 2009.

(b)  Since her husband in Indonesia was unemployed and she needed money to repay a family loan and her son's education fees, she stole the Items from the wardrobe in PW1’s bedroom.

(c)  She pawned some of the Items stolen from PW1 at different pawnshops in Chai Wan, Siu Sai Wan, Causeway Bay and Wan Chai for about HK$100,000 in total. She threw away all the pawn tickets and sent all the money back to Indonesia.

6.Pawnshop records revealed that the defendant pawned a total of 8 pieces of jewellery at 6 different pawnshops located in North Point, Causeway Bay and Wan Chai for a total of HK$13,550 from 8 April 2021 to 9 June 2021.  Apart from 1 pair of earrings and 1 pendant (valued at HK$37,500 in total), these jewellery pieces had already been sold by the pawnshops.  PW1 confirmed that the pair of earrings and pendant were part of the Items stored in her bedroom.

7.At the material times, the defendant stole the Items belonging to PW1.

The defendant’s background

8.The defendant is 45 years old, married and has two children.  She has been living and working in Hong Kong since 1998 and has a clear record.  She has been working for PW1’s family since 2009.

Mitigation

9.Mr Lai, solicitors for the defendant, admitted that this case involves a breach of trust.  In mitigation, Mr Lai mentioned 2 salient points.  Firstly, he said that the defendant’s husband was indebted to a “loan shark” and she therefore stole PW1’s jewelries to save the lives of her children and husband. She was able to raise HK$100,000 in order to repay the debts.  Secondly, she pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity.

10.I asked Mr Lai whether there is any screenshot of the words exchanged between the defendant and her husband about the loan shark and physical danger.  However, Mr Lai said the defendant was unable to do so.  Mr Lai clarified that such breach of trust was to repay debts, not to save lives. The defendant’s actions were a serious breach of that trust.  The amount involved is more than HK$400,000 and persisted for more than 6 months. 

11.Apart from her timely plea, there is little other mitigation.  According to the sentencing guidelines set out in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776, as amended by HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017, the starting point for stealing HK$250,000 to HK$1 million is 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment.  The value of the stolen property alone would have warranted a starting point of 2 years and 3 months.  However, the value of the property is not the be all and end all.  The court has to consider all the circumstances of the case.  As mentioned above, there are a number of aggravating features, namely the persistent pilfering conduct over a prolonged period of time (which would have continued but for the exposure by PW1), the number of items stolen and the potential sentimental value of some jewelries that PW1 was unable to retrieve. I was told that the most of the stolen property were left by the victim’s deceased mother.  I also take into consideration the fact that small proportion of the stolen property has been recovered and the defendant did give some assistance to the police.  Having considered all the circumstances of the case, I adopt a starting point of 2½ years.  The defendant has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, I give her the full one third discount.  The sentence is reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment.