HKSAR v. Majdi Noureddine and Another

DCCC397/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 397 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to five charges, two charges of theft, two of obtaining or attempting to obtain property by deception using credit cards stolen in the theft, and the 5th charge is a breach of condition of stay.

2.The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that at about 10 o’clock on the evening of 16 February 2011 the victim in the first case, a Miss Pauline Devay, and her friends went to a bar known as Carnegies which is on Lockhart Road in Wanchai.  Inside the bar she placed her handbag underneath her coat on a shelf and in the early hours of the following morning she discovered that the bag and its contents were missing.  Inside the bag were what one would expect to find, identity documents and, in particular, a credit card and cash.

3.At 7.45 on the morning of 17 February the defendant and his girlfriend went to a shop called Nobletime which is in the Hong Kong International Airport arrival hall, and there he used the credit card belonging to Pauline Devay to purchase a Samsung tablet computer which was valued at $5,288. 

4.A couple of days later at about 3 o’clock in the morning on Saturday 19 February the victim in the second theft case in Charge 3 on the charge sheet, Mr Field and his friends, went to have some drinks in a disco known as the Neptune in the basement of the Yen Men Building in Jaffe Road, Wanchai.  He left his overcoat unattended and at 5 o’clock in the morning he found that it was missing.  Inside the overcoat was his wallet containing a large amount of cash and a number of credit cards.  Also there was his Blackberry and his driving licence.

5.At 7.20 that morning the defendant and his girlfriend again went to the International Airport.  They went to the same shop and attempted to purchase a mobile phone valued at $4,988.  Fortunately one of the staff recognised the defendant from two days previously and noticed that on that occasion he had used a different credit card.  In fact, it was a French VISA card.  That assistant became suspicious.  The police were alerted and the defendant and his girlfriend were intercepted when they were leaving the shop with their newly purchased mobile phone.  Upon search the defendant was found to be carrying certain stolen property including a number of credit cards and also stolen property was found on his girlfriend. 

6.As regards the 5th charge, the breach of condition of stay, the defendant arrived in Hong Kong on 2 June 2010 and was permitted to remain in Hong Kong as a visitor only for 30 days and he was due to leave on 2 July 2010. 

7.The defendant has a clear record.  I am told in mitigation that he is 36 years of age.  He is a single man.  He was born in Morocco and still has family there.  He served his training as an electrician and in 1995 he went to Japan and he in fact married a Japanese lady and was subsequently divorced from her.  I am told that he arrived in Hong Kong on 2 June.  He arrived legally and while he was here he formed a relationship with the lady with whom he was arrested.  He decided to stay on in Hong Kong, I am told, not for any criminal purposes but to continue his relationship with the young lady and also because he had, he tells the court, worked at some part of his life on behalf of the FBI and acted as an informant and he was concerned about retribution being exacted against him for information he had supplied to the FBI. 

8.I am told that the offences he has committed, he is very remorseful for these offences and they were completely out of character.  I am told that not only does he have no convictions in Hong Kong but he has no convictions anywhere else in the world.  I was told that on the nights in question when the offences were committed the defendant had been drinking heavily and had also been taking anti-depressant tablets and it was a combination of these factors which made him act out of character.  This is not an excuse for his behaviour but merely an explanation as to the background as to how the offences came to be committed.  The defendant himself addressed the court and said that he feels ashamed of his conduct and was apologetic both to the public of Hong Kong and he felt that he had let himself down and shamed himself and his family.

9.The offences which the defendant committed are clearly serious.  The theft offences were committed in crowded places and the property stolen.  It is not only the intrinsic value of the property stolen but obviously wallets and handbags one would expect to find credit cards and, indeed, credit cards were there which the defendant subsequently used.  The use of false credit cards is a problem in Hong Kong and the courts have said that deterrent sentences must be passed in relation to such offences.

10.With regards the two theft offences I take the view that the starting point for sentence should be a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for each of those.  They were committed in crowded places.  The property stolen was the sort of property in which one would expect to find credit cards and, indeed, credit cards were subsequently found in the property and later used by the defendant.

11.As regards the obtaining by deception offences, I take the view that the starting point for those offences using the credit cards belonging to others is a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment. 

12.The defendant will be given credit for his guilty plea so those sentences will be reduced to 12 months and 24 months respectively.  I then have to consider the question of totality and whether those sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently. 

13.What I have decided to do, that for the theft and the obtaining by deception charges, the first 2 offences, that the sentences shall run concurrently.  That is 24 months total on the first 2 charges.  On 3 and 4, again those sentences shall run concurrently, that is 24 months, but 6 months of that sentence shall run consecutive to the 24 months on the first 2 charges.  That will make a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.

14.As regards Charge 5, I take the view that the appropriate sentence for that is one month imprisonment and that should be served concurrently.

15.The total sentence therefore will be one of 31 months’ imprisonment.