HKSAR v. Novita-ambarwati

DCCC 492/2026

[2026] HKDC 1976

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 492 OF 2026

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant, a foreign domestic helper, pleaded guilty to a charge of "Theft".  She stole gold ornaments valued at $450,000 in total from her employer.

Summary of Facts

2.Madam Law (PW1; aged 70) and her husband resided in a flat situated at Fortune Garden, No.15 Wing Ting Road, Wong Tai Sin ("the Flat").  Since 2013, PW1 began to employ the defendant as a foreign domestic helper.

3.In the morning of 26 October 2025, PW1 opened the storage compartment underneath the mattress of her bed to take out some clothes.  She also took out her jewellery box, which was kept in the same storage compartment.  She discovered that most of her gold ornaments placed in the jewellery box were missing.

4.PW1 asked the defendant about the matter.  She admitted that she had lost a lot of money through online gambling and had started stealing PW1's gold ornaments and pawning them 2 years earlier.  The defendant also took out 12 pawnshop receipts (collectively "the Receipts") and explained that they were related to some of the stolen gold ornaments.  Upon checking, PW1 found that there were about 6 more gold items were missing.  The total value of all stolen gold ornaments was about $450,000.  The case was reported to the police.

5.Police investigation revealed that on 4 occasions, namely 1 July, 16 August, 26 August and 11 September 2025, the defendant pawned at Chun Hing Pawnshop, in total, 1 gold bracelet[1], 2 gold bangles, 4 gold rings and 2 gold pendant necklaces.  She received an aggregate sum of $39,300.

6.On 27 July 2025, the defendant pawned 1 gold bracelet at Tak Hing Pawnshop for $15,000.

7.On 22 September 2025, the defendant pawned 1 gold bracelet at Wah Wing Pawnshop for $10,000.

8.On 5 October 2025, the defendant pawned 1 gold bracelet and 2 gold earrings[2] at Chuen Fat Pawnshop for a total sum of $7,500.

9.About 11:50 a.m. on 26 October 2025, PC 62550 arrested the defendant for "Theft" at the Flat.  Under caution, she admitted stealing 18 pieces of gold ornaments.

10.In her video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that she knew where PW1 had kept her gold ornaments.  She started stealing them about 2 years earlier and had taken 18 pieces in total.  She stole the gold ornaments because she needed money to gamble.  The Receipts were related to the gold ornaments she had stolen from PW1.  The defendant claimed that 4 more receipts issued by Chun Hing Pawnshop were missing[3].

Mitigation & Sentence

11.The defendant is 41 and has a clear record.  Defence counsel Mr. Chan informed me that the defendant is single and comes from Indonesia.  By the time of her arrest, she had worked as a domestic helper in Hong Kong continuously for about 16 years.  In mitigation, Mr. Chan explained that the defendant was addicted to online gambling and was in urgent need of money to repay her debts.  Out of greed, she began stealing PW1's gold ornaments and pawning them for quick cash.

12.Mr. Chan accepts that this case involves the Barrick type of breach of trust.  He agrees that the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 are applicable.  According to Ng Kwok Wing, if the amount stolen is between $250,000 and $1 million, the starting point is 2 to 3 years' imprisonment.

13.The defendant had stolen $450,000 worth of gold ornaments from her employer over a period of 2 years.  Applying a strict arithmetical approach, the starting point should be about 39 months, which I would adopt.  With her timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 26 months.

14.I understand that 12 out of the 18 items stolen were recovered from the pawnshops.  By pawning those 12 items, the defendant received $71,800 in total.  To get those 12 items back, PW1 paid the pawnshops $34,150 in total.  PW1 is still missing 6 gold ornaments since the defendant did not retain the relevant pawnshop receipts.  I shall grant a nominal discount of 2 months for the partial recovery of the stolen items, thereby reducing the sentence to 24 months.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 24 months' imprisonment.