HKSAR v. Assey Rodrick Benedict

DCCC 597/2026

[2026] HKDC 1994

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 597 OF 2026

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of "Theft" (Charges 1 and 3) and a charge of "Fraud" (Charge 2).  He stole credit cards from gym lockers and used them to make purchases.

Summary of Facts

Background

2.The defendant is a visitor from Tanzania.  He entered Hong Kong on 12 June 2025.  He held a day-pass to a commercial fitness centre located on the 3^rd Floor, IFC Mall in Central ("the Fitness Centre").

3.Mr. Ho (PW1) was a trainer working at the Fitness Centre.  He held a Visa credit card issued by Bank of China ("Card 1").

4.Mr. Chung (PW2) was a member of the Fitness Centre.  He held a Visa credit card issued by Shanghai Commercial Bank ("Card 2") and a Mastercard issued by Citibank ("Card 3").

Charge 1

5.About 9:00 a.m. on 26 June 2025, PW1 arrived at the Fitness Centre for work.  During that day, he kept his personal belongings, including his wallet containing Card 1, in locker No.21 in the male changing room, without securing the locker with any lock.

6.About 3:00 p.m. on 27 June 2025, PW1 discovered that Card 1 was missing from his wallet.

Charge 2

7.Police investigation revealed that at 8:59 p.m. on 26 June 2025, Card 1 was used in an unauthorized transaction at "On Store", a retail shop located at Pacific Place in Admiralty ("the Shop").  The defendant used Card 1 to purchase a pair of sports shoes, a long-sleeved T-shirt, a rucksack, and a T-shirt (valued at $3,820 in total; collectively "the Merchandise").

Charge 3

8.About 5:20 p.m. on 26 June 2025, PW2 arrived at the Fitness Centre.  He put his personal belongings in locker No.138 in the male changing room and secured it with a combination padlock.  Amongst his personal belongings were a Rolex watch ("the Watch") and a wallet containing $2,050 in cash, Card 2, and Card 3.

9.About 6:30 p.m. on the same day, PW2 discovered that $2,000 in cash, Card 2, and Card 3 were missing from his wallet.  The Watch was missing from the locker as well.

10.CCTV footage of the Fitness Centre captured the defendant's presence there between 5:04 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on 26 June 2025.

Arrest and admissions

11.About 9:38 p.m. on 26 June 2025, DPC 60714 arrested the defendant for "Theft" in the lobby of Kew Green Hotel in Wanchai.  At the same time, PC 10422 (PW4) seized a Rolex watch worn by the defendant on his left wrist, which PW2 later confirmed to be the Watch.  PW4 also seized the following items from the defendant :-

(i)  Card 1, in a cardholder found in his right front trouser pocket; and

(ii)  a paper bag bearing the Shop's marque, which contained the Merchandise and a sales receipt issued by the Shop for the Merchandise.

12.In his video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he had committed the 3 offences in Charges 1 to 3.  Regarding Charge 3, he claimed that he did it out of greed.  He had spent the cash and misplaced Cards 2 and 3.  He said he was remorseful.

Mitigation & Sentence

13.The defendant is 42 and has a clear record.  Defence solicitor Mr. Hui informed me that the defendant is not married but has 2 daughters (aged 4 and 2).  Both girls are looked after by the defendant's father (aged 75).  The defendant is his family's sole income source.  He received tertiary education in Tanzania.  In mitigation, Mr. Hui submitted that the defendant committed the present offences out of financial need to support his family and to meet the high cost of living in Hong Kong.

14.The defendant's claim is illogical.  If he was already in financial hardship back home in Tanzania, why spend the money to come to Hong Kong in the first place, unless he purposely came here to make money by committing crimes? If he found the cost of living in Hong Kong too high, why pay for a day-pass for the Fitness Centre? Be that as it may, I will not hold that against him.  I merely point out that his mitigation makes no sense.

15.According to the relevant sentencing authorities[1], credit card offences are serious and must be deterred.  Even a small scale credit card fraud with small losses by an offender who is not alleged to be part of a larger syndicate can attract a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment.

16.In HKSAR v Chen Wing Hong CACC 40/2005, the Court of Appeal observed that "… in this day and age the integrity of the credit card system is highly important and those who attempt to beat the system by fraudulent methods necessarily erode the confidence which people are entitled to place on this aspect of modern commercial life[2]."

17.Mr. Hui has referred me to the Court of Appeal decision in HKSAR v Li Chi Yat [2019] HKCA 458 (CACC 189/2018), in which Zervos JA observed that authorities including Lam See Chung, Stephen[3] and Tu I Lang[4] have recognized that small-scale credit card offences cannot be subjected to strict guidelines because they can vary significantly in numerous ways and that a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment or less would be appropriate[5].

18.In the present case, the defendant stole a total of 3 credit cards from 2 lockers in a gym − one was not locked, and he picked the combination padlock of the other.  He used one of the credit cards to purchase the Merchandise.  He also stole $2,000 in cash and a Rolex watch[6] from the second locker.

19.Plainly, the usage of the credit cards in the present case is far more serious than in Li Chi Yat.  Furthermore, Zervos JA in Li Chi Yat described the credit card as having been stolen opportunistically[7], whereas I do not regard the defendant's theft of Cards 1 to 3 and other properties as opportunistic, since they were kept in lockers in the Fitness Centre.  He first had to gain access to the Fitness Centre as a customer and then go through the lockers in the male changing room, even picking a combination padlock on one of them.  Furthermore, the recovery of the Merchandise and the Watch does not constitute a mitigating factor.  It merely neutralizes any corresponding aggravating factor.

20.I will follow the sentencing principles stipulated in Li Chi Yat.  For Charge 2, however, I adopt a starting point of 2.5 years' imprisonment instead of 2 years.  For Charges 1 and 3, I adopt a starting point of 9 months' and 12 months' imprisonment respectively.  With the timely guilty pleas, the sentences for the 3 charges become 6 months, 20 months and 8 months respectively.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant respectively to 6 months', 20 months' and 8 months' imprisonment for Charges 1 to 3.

21.Bearing in mind the totality principle, I order the sentences for Charges 1 and 3 to run concurrently; and 4 months in Charges 1 and 3 to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 2.  Thus, arriving at a total prison term of 24 months.