區域法院Deputy District Judge Don So24/7/2025[2025] HKDC 1280
DCCC1159/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 1159/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1280 C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1159 OF 2024
F F
----------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H v H
BAYU RIZKI AMANDA (D1)
I I
IWAN TAMBAH (D2)
J (also known as ASTIRYAN DIPANI, J
DIPANI ASTIRYAN, NIRWAN APRYAN
K K
and MAULANA MALIK APRYAN)
L RICKY ILWANDI (D3) L
----------------------------
M M
N N
Before: Deputy District Judge Don So
O
Date: 25 July 2025 O
Present: Mr Wong Hin Sun, Jack, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
P P
Mr Davies, Oliver Howell, instructed by Anthony Kwan &
Q Co, assigned by DLA, for the 1st defendant Q
Mr Lee Kwok-fu, Dick, instructed by Foo, Leung & Yeung,
R R
assigned by DLA, for the 2nd defendant
S Mr Beel, Trevor, instructed by David Y Y Fung & Co, S
assigned by DLA, for the 3rd defendant
T T
Offence: [1] to [3] Theft（盜竊罪）(against D1, D2 and D3)
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
[4] Breach of deportation order（違反遞解離境令）(against
C D2) C
D D
-----------------------------------------
E REASONS FOR SENTENCE E
-----------------------------------------
F F
G 1. All three defendants pleaded guilty to three joint charges of G
theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210 of the Laws
H H
of Hong Kong. In addition, the 2 nd defendant pleaded guilty to the 4th
I charge of breach of deportation order, contrary to section 43(1)(a) of the I
Immigration Ordinance, Chapter 115, of the Laws of Hong Kong.
J J
K 2. In fact, all three defendants are Indonesian tourists to Hong K
Kong. They knew each other before they came. They came to steal. A
L L
few days after their arrival, they worked together to steal from three victims.
M M
3. Count 1 is how the defendant stole from a lady who has just
N N
cashed a cheque from the bank. Three defendants were behind her, her
O O
rucksack was unzipped. D3 took the cash, $25,000 therein, while D1 and
P
D2 acted as cover. This is a pickpocketing case. P
Q Q
4. Count 2 is a case where another lady was the victim. She
R
withdrew some cash from a bank. Later, she placed her handbag on a R
trolley outside a coffee shop. D2 came along, telling, distracting her that
S S
she has dropped some coins to the floor. While she was looking down, D1
T stole the handbag containing cash $5,500, a Hong Kong ID card, an T
Octopus card, etc. This time, D3 acted as a cover.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 5. Count 3 is concerned with the victim who withdrew $10,000 C
cash from a bank. He went to a park, sat on the bench, on which he placed
D D
his handbag too. D1 took the $10,000 cash from the handbag while D2
E and D3 were acting as lookouts. They all ran with the money. E
F F
6. Three crimes were committed within five days and all at about
G noon time. The total cash involved is some $40,000 which was shared by G
all three defendants.
H H
I 7. In addition, during investigation, it came to light that D2 had I
changed his name and managed to arrive in Hong Kong in violation of a
J J
deportation order.
K K
8. D1 is 27 years old. He is married with two children. He has
L L
no criminal record in Hong Kong.
M M
9. D2 is 42 years old. He is married with three kids. He has four
N N
criminal convictions in Hong Kong where two are theft and two are breach
O of deportation order. Each time, he was sentenced to prison. O
P P
10. D3 is 48 years old. He is married with five children. He has
Q no criminal record in Hong Kong. Q
R R
11. All mitigation submissions, including defendants’ medical,
S personal and family issues are considered, but they do not amount to S
sentence reducing factors because all the issues were there before they
T T
came to Hong Kong.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 12. The case of HKSAR v Tan Hong Sheng, unreported CACC C
238/2005 (10 February 2006), is concerned with a pickpocketing gang
D D
from the mainland, where the Court of Appeal approved of 30 months’
E imprisonment against the clear record culprit on a single charge as a E
starting point in light of the following aggravating features:
F F
G (a) the offence was committed in a crowded area where the G
public was at particular risk;
H H
I (b) the offence was carried out by three accused jointly; I
J J
(c) there was a cross-border element as the accused
K committed the offence the next day after they arrived in K
Hong Kong from the mainland;
L L
M (d) the offence was organised, well-planned, and M
professional.
N N
O 13. The facts of this case are similar to Tang, but I am not sure of O
the degree of crowdedness of the crime scene here and if the present crime
P P
was as organised and profession as Tang. Because of this, I adopt a 27
Q months’ imprisonment as a starting point for Count 1. Q
R R
14. Count 2 and Count 3 are akin to pickpocketing, but not exactly
S as such. Count 2’s handbag was placed on a trolley, a nearby trolley, Count S
3’s bag was placed on the bench next to the owner. I accordingly adopt 24
T T
months’ imprisonment as a starting point for each count.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 15. The deportation charge. This is the third time the C
2nd defendant violated the order. The last time he was sentenced to 18
D D
months’ imprisonment in Sha Tin Magistrate Court. I agree with his
E counsel that I should adopt a 27 months’ imprisonment starting point. E
HKSAR v Pham Van Hung, unreported CACC 14/2011 (12 August 2011).
F F
D2 has previous two theft convictions too. This will be reflected in the
G totality application. G
H H
16. All three defendants indicated a guilty plea at the first
I available opportunity and shall be given full one-third discount. I
J J
17. The principle of totality is considered. To maintain overall
K fairness and to avoid undue hardship to the defendants, I sentence: K
L L
(1) D1: Count 1, 18 months’ imprisonment; Count 2, 16
M months’ imprisonment; Count 3, 16 months’ M
imprisonment, where 4 months of each of Count 2 and
N N
Count 3 are to run consecutive to Count 1, thus making
O a total of 26 months’ imprisonment. This is the 1st O
defendant;
P P
Q (2) D2: Count 1, 18 months’ imprisonment; Count 2, 16 Q
months’ imprisonment; Count 3, 16 months’
R R
imprisonment; Count 4, 18 months’ imprisonment,
S where 4 months each of Count 2 and Count 3 and all 18 S
months of Count 4 are to run consecutive to Count 1,
T T
thus making a total of 44 months’ imprisonment;
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C (3) D3: Count 1, 18 months’ imprisonment; Count 2, 16 C
months’ imprisonment; Count 3, 16 months’
D D
imprisonment, where 4 months each of Count 2 and
E Count 3 are to run consecutive to Count 1, thus making E
a total of 26 months’ imprisonment.
F F
G G
H H
I I
( Don So)
J Deputy District Judge J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 1159/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1280 C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1159 OF 2024
F F
----------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H v H
BAYU RIZKI AMANDA (D1)
I I
IWAN TAMBAH (D2)
J (also known as ASTIRYAN DIPANI, J
DIPANI ASTIRYAN, NIRWAN APRYAN
K K
and MAULANA MALIK APRYAN)
L RICKY ILWANDI (D3) L
----------------------------
M M
N N
Before: Deputy District Judge Don So
O
Date: 25 July 2025 O
Present: Mr Wong Hin Sun, Jack, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
P P
Mr Davies, Oliver Howell, instructed by Anthony Kwan &
Q Co, assigned by DLA, for the 1st defendant Q
Mr Lee Kwok-fu, Dick, instructed by Foo, Leung & Yeung,
R R
assigned by DLA, for the 2nd defendant
S Mr Beel, Trevor, instructed by David Y Y Fung & Co, S
assigned by DLA, for the 3rd defendant
T T
Offence: [1] to [3] Theft（盜竊罪）(against D1, D2 and D3)
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
[4] Breach of deportation order（違反遞解離境令）(against
C D2) C
D D
-----------------------------------------
E REASONS FOR SENTENCE E
-----------------------------------------
F F
G 1. All three defendants pleaded guilty to three joint charges of G
theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210 of the Laws
H H
of Hong Kong. In addition, the 2 nd defendant pleaded guilty to the 4th
I charge of breach of deportation order, contrary to section 43(1)(a) of the I
Immigration Ordinance, Chapter 115, of the Laws of Hong Kong.
J J
K 2. In fact, all three defendants are Indonesian tourists to Hong K
Kong. They knew each other before they came. They came to steal. A
L L
few days after their arrival, they worked together to steal from three victims.
M M
3. Count 1 is how the defendant stole from a lady who has just
N N
cashed a cheque from the bank. Three defendants were behind her, her
O O
rucksack was unzipped. D3 took the cash, $25,000 therein, while D1 and
P
D2 acted as cover. This is a pickpocketing case. P
Q Q
4. Count 2 is a case where another lady was the victim. She
R
withdrew some cash from a bank. Later, she placed her handbag on a R
trolley outside a coffee shop. D2 came along, telling, distracting her that
S S
she has dropped some coins to the floor. While she was looking down, D1
T stole the handbag containing cash $5,500, a Hong Kong ID card, an T
Octopus card, etc. This time, D3 acted as a cover.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 5. Count 3 is concerned with the victim who withdrew $10,000 C
cash from a bank. He went to a park, sat on the bench, on which he placed
D D
his handbag too. D1 took the $10,000 cash from the handbag while D2
E and D3 were acting as lookouts. They all ran with the money. E
F F
6. Three crimes were committed within five days and all at about
G noon time. The total cash involved is some $40,000 which was shared by G
all three defendants.
H H
I 7. In addition, during investigation, it came to light that D2 had I
changed his name and managed to arrive in Hong Kong in violation of a
J J
deportation order.
K K
8. D1 is 27 years old. He is married with two children. He has
L L
no criminal record in Hong Kong.
M M
9. D2 is 42 years old. He is married with three kids. He has four
N N
criminal convictions in Hong Kong where two are theft and two are breach
O of deportation order. Each time, he was sentenced to prison. O
P P
10. D3 is 48 years old. He is married with five children. He has
Q no criminal record in Hong Kong. Q
R R
11. All mitigation submissions, including defendants’ medical,
S personal and family issues are considered, but they do not amount to S
sentence reducing factors because all the issues were there before they
T T
came to Hong Kong.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 12. The case of HKSAR v Tan Hong Sheng, unreported CACC C
238/2005 (10 February 2006), is concerned with a pickpocketing gang
D D
from the mainland, where the Court of Appeal approved of 30 months’
E imprisonment against the clear record culprit on a single charge as a E
starting point in light of the following aggravating features:
F F
G (a) the offence was committed in a crowded area where the G
public was at particular risk;
H H
I (b) the offence was carried out by three accused jointly; I
J J
(c) there was a cross-border element as the accused
K committed the offence the next day after they arrived in K
Hong Kong from the mainland;
L L
M (d) the offence was organised, well-planned, and M
professional.
N N
O 13. The facts of this case are similar to Tang, but I am not sure of O
the degree of crowdedness of the crime scene here and if the present crime
P P
was as organised and profession as Tang. Because of this, I adopt a 27
Q months’ imprisonment as a starting point for Count 1. Q
R R
14. Count 2 and Count 3 are akin to pickpocketing, but not exactly
S as such. Count 2’s handbag was placed on a trolley, a nearby trolley, Count S
3’s bag was placed on the bench next to the owner. I accordingly adopt 24
T T
months’ imprisonment as a starting point for each count.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 15. The deportation charge. This is the third time the C
2nd defendant violated the order. The last time he was sentenced to 18
D D
months’ imprisonment in Sha Tin Magistrate Court. I agree with his
E counsel that I should adopt a 27 months’ imprisonment starting point. E
HKSAR v Pham Van Hung, unreported CACC 14/2011 (12 August 2011).
F F
D2 has previous two theft convictions too. This will be reflected in the
G totality application. G
H H
16. All three defendants indicated a guilty plea at the first
I available opportunity and shall be given full one-third discount. I
J J
17. The principle of totality is considered. To maintain overall
K fairness and to avoid undue hardship to the defendants, I sentence: K
L L
(1) D1: Count 1, 18 months’ imprisonment; Count 2, 16
M months’ imprisonment; Count 3, 16 months’ M
imprisonment, where 4 months of each of Count 2 and
N N
Count 3 are to run consecutive to Count 1, thus making
O a total of 26 months’ imprisonment. This is the 1st O
defendant;
P P
Q (2) D2: Count 1, 18 months’ imprisonment; Count 2, 16 Q
months’ imprisonment; Count 3, 16 months’
R R
imprisonment; Count 4, 18 months’ imprisonment,
S where 4 months each of Count 2 and Count 3 and all 18 S
months of Count 4 are to run consecutive to Count 1,
T T
thus making a total of 44 months’ imprisonment;
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C (3) D3: Count 1, 18 months’ imprisonment; Count 2, 16 C
months’ imprisonment; Count 3, 16 months’
D D
imprisonment, where 4 months each of Count 2 and
E Count 3 are to run consecutive to Count 1, thus making E
a total of 26 months’ imprisonment.
F F
G G
H H
I I
( Don So)
J Deputy District Judge J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
DCCC1159/2024 HKSAR v. BAYU RIZKI AMANDA AND OTHERS - LawHero