區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Charles J Chan2/9/2025[2025] HKDC 1524
DCCC291/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 291/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1524 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 291 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I DONG JIAHAO I
----------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Charles J Chan K
Date: 3 September 2025
L L
Present: Ms Ng Memi M W, counsel-on-fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Boyton David Rex, instructed by T K Tsui & Co, for the M
defendant
N N
Offence: Handling stolen goods（處理贓物罪）
O O
P P
--------------------------------------
Q Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R
-------------------------------------- R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of handling stolen
C goods, contrary to section 24 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. C
D D
2. Briefly, the Summary of Facts shows that PW1, the victim,
E had lost his Rolex watch (worth HK$117,895) after attending a gathering E
with his friends on 3 September 2022. He was drunk and fell asleep. He
F F
found his watch missing when he woke up in the next morning. He
G checked with the friends but in vain, and then he left the venue of the G
gathering and headed to make a report to the police.
H H
I 3. Two months later, on 22 November 2022, the defendant was I
received by the staff of a pawnshop. The defendant successfully pawned
J J
the watch, the stolen property, at HK$70,000 but the staff was notified by
K the police that the item was a stolen property two days subsequent to the K
visit of the defendant.
L L
M 4. PW1 was called upon to assist in the investigation and he M
positively identified the watch to be his lost property. PW1 confirmed that
N N
he did not know the defendant nor the female who accompanied the
O defendant during his visit. PW1 eventually redeemed the watch from the O
pawnshop at HK$45,000.
P P
Q 5. The defendant was arrested on 4 February 2023. Q
R R
6. Based on the above, the defendant admitted that at the
S material time, he dishonestly received the Rolex watch, a stolen goods, S
being property belonging to PW1, knowing or believing the same to be
T T
stolen goods. The defendant is convicted accordingly.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 7. In mitigation, Mr Boyton fairly acknowledged that the C
defendant does not enjoy a full one-third discount. The late plea of guilty
D D
only warrant a 25% reduction of sentence.
E E
8. Mr Boyton also fairly referred to the previous conviction of
F F
his client, which includes 3 cases and 10 offences, most of them were
G offences of dishonesty. It is emphasized that the defendant is only 25 years G
of age. In other words, he was relatively young when he received a
H H
probation order and a term of incarceration in the Rehabilitation Centre in
I the past, and so when he committed the present offence around 3 years ago. I
J J
9. Further mitigations focused on the proper starting point. Mr
K Boyton submitted that: K
L L
“1. There is no tariff for the offences of “Handling Stolen
Goods”, for each case must depend on its own facts. The offence
M of handling stolen goods carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ M
imprisonment, and “Theft” carries a maximum penalty of 10
N
years’ imprisonment. N
2. Having said that, the oft cited case of R. v. Chan Wing-
O kwan & Anor, CACC 121/1985 (unreported, 28 August 1985), O
appears to lay down a reference for that sentence, where Roberts,
CJ said:
P P
“An examination of a number of other cases of handling
Q of stolen goods shows that the normal bracket of Q
sentences runs between 2 and 4 years. Similarly, other
decisions suggest that the handler of stolen goods can
R normally expect a lesser sentence than those who are R
convicted of the substantive offence of burglary of the
S goods which were subsequently handled.” S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B 3. However, in relation to the majority cases of handling B
stolen goods, that adopt or apply this 2 to 4 year starting point,
C involve an original offence that was far more serious, than in the C
instant case, and invariable the ‘stolen goods’ were the proceeds
of burglaries.”
D D
10. There is no evidence to link the defendant to the theft of the
E E
watch in this case. It is fair to say that there is also no evidence as to how
F the defendant came to be in possession of the watch. F
G G
11. This court however has no hesitation in rejecting the assertion
H that the defendant bought the watch from a friend. He claimed to the police H
that he bought it at HK$70,000. There is simply no reason for him to pawn
I I
it at HK$70,000 shortly afterwards had he bought it at the same price (See
J para 13 of the Summary of Facts). J
K K
12. In any event, the guilty plea confirms that the defendant
L L
committed the offence knowing or believing that the watch was a stolen
M
property. This vitiates whatever assertion he made to the police earlier on. M
N N
13. That being said, this court is prepared to accept that the instant
O case is not about “proceeds of burglaries”. There is no evidence to link the O
defendant to the underlying theft (in whatever form). This case remains
P P
serious however; the offence does not require the proof of that link either.
Q Q
14. Mr Boyton also provided this court with the following cases
R R
and a summary:
S S
“(1) HKSAR v. POON Yu-fai, CACC 36/2011 (unreported 16
T August 2011) which involved a Rolex watch, the proceeds of a T
burglary, which was pawned 6 days later, together with the
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B individual aggravating features of the appellant, resulted in a B
starting point of 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
C C
(2) HKSAR v. XIAO Wei [2003] 3 HKLRD 1063 involved a
stolen watch which originated from a domestic burglary, where
D the Court of Appeal accepted that the appropriate starting point D
was below the band suggested in Chan Wing-kwan, namely 18
E
months. At paragraph 9 of the judgment the following was said: E
“Mr McGowan also invited our attention to a most
F helpful schedule which had been prepared to illustrate F
that, judging from other Court of Appeal decisions, a
starting point of three years or above, in handling cases
G G
arising from burglary or robbery, seemed to be reserved
for more serious offences than the circumstances
H justified in the instant case.” H
(3) LUNG Wei-cheong v. R., CACC 293/1994 (unreported 8
I November 1994) the handler had handed keys to the burgled I
premises and took a share in the stolen goods; and was sentenced
J the same as one of the burglars, namely 3 years’ imprisonment J
(not included in the defendant’s list of authorities).
K (4) R. v. YAU Yu and others, CACC 243/1992 (unreported K
10 February 1993) where the stolen goods originated from a
robbery inside a premises. Of note is at paragraph 12 when the
L L
Court of Appeal referred to CHAN Wing-kwan (above),
considered “No principle emerges from the judgment”.
M M
(5) HKSAR v. KWAN Po-keung [2012] 2 HKLRD 12 the
applicant was convicted of other offences, including obtaining
N property by deception and burglary. For the handling offence, N
the items involved seven stolen credit cards, which infers the
O possibility of further offences being committed by the applicant, O
and on par with a sentence for the possession of stolen credit
cards per se, sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for the
P handling charge.” P
Q Q
15. It appears that the victim was not subjected to violence and
R the theft could be carried out by one single person, seemingly, who was a R
participant in the gathering, who took advantage of the drunken condition
S S
of the victim. This is to a certain extent akin to a breach of trust scenario.
T Nonetheless, there is not an iota of evidence to place that element on the T
defendant before this court.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
16. It should be acknowledged that the value of the stolen
C property is high. Mr Boyton also made reference to a number of cases that C
involved the stealing of valuable property, personal smart phone and credit
D D
card (See HKSAR v Tong Wai Hung HCMA 418/2002; HKSAR v
E Tumendelger Byambadelger CACC 247/2015; HKSAR v Atienza Richard E
Montenegro CACC 38/2016; and HKSAR v Tseveen-Ochir Batjargal
F F
CACC 250/2016). These cases took a much lower starting point of 9
G months’ imprisonment. G
H H
17. Mr Boyton suggested that the present case is akin to a theft by
I finding and requested this court to consider a starting point that is lower I
than 12 months’ imprisonment. Having carefully considered, this court is
J J
not prepared to accept that submission. Nor should the court adopt the
K usual starting point only when the underlying offence is burglary, implying K
that a higher starting point is not justified in other context.
L L
M 18. After all, each case depends on its own facts and features. M
N N
19. In Xiao Wei, the subject stolen goods was a watch and the
O appellant in that case pawned it shortly after the burglary took place. The O
Court of Appeal found that a 3-year starting point was manifestly excessive
P P
and replaced it with a 18 months’ starting point. It is noteworthy that, a
Q number of aggravating factors were deduced from the case of R v Bernard Q
Webbe & Others, cited at 1067G-1068A:
R R
S “(1) The closeness of the handler to the primary offence. (We S
add that closeness may be geographical, arising from
presence at or near the primary offence when it was
T committed, or temporal, where the handler instigated or T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B encouraged the primary offence beforehand, or, soon B
after, provided a safe haven or route for disposal).
C C
(2) Particular seriousness in the primary offence.
D (3) High value of the goods to the loser, including D
sentimental value.
E E
(4) The fact that the goods were the proceeds of a domestic
burglary.
F F
(5) Sophistication in relation to the handling.
G G
(6) A high level of profit made or expected by the handler.
H (7) The provision by the handler of a regular outlet for stolen H
goods.
I (8) Threats of violence or abuse of power by the handler I
over others, for example, an adult commissioning
J criminal activity by children, or a drug dealer J
pressurising addicts to steal in order to pay for their habit.
K (9) As is statutorily provided by s. 151(2) of the Powers of K
Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the commission
of an offence while on bail.
L L
The Court went on (in paras. 21-22) to say:
M M
We also agree with the mitigating factors identified as being
among those relevant … namely, low monetary value of the
N goods, the fact that the offence was a one-off offence, committed N
by an otherwise honest defendant, the fact that there is little or
O no benefit to the defendant, and the fact of voluntary restitution O
to the victim.
P We also agree … that other factors to be taken into account P
include personal mitigation, ready co-operation with the police,
Q
previous convictions, especially for offences of dishonestly Q
and … a timely plea of guilty.”
R R
20. The Court of Appeal added that, “the applicant revealed a
S considerable lack of sophistication in his method of converting the stolen S
watch into a sum of money when providing details about himself through
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
which he could be (as indeed he was) traced (at #11).” This is what had
C happened in the present case. C
D D
21. Conversely, the value of the stolen goods is higher in the
E present case. It is only fortunate that the victim had already retrieved it. E
As a result of the negotiation between the pawnshop and the victim, the
F F
loss of the victim is limited to $45,000 whereas, the pawnshop suffers a
G loss of $25,000 ($70,000 - $45,000 = $25,000). The defendant offered a G
restitution of HK$40,000. The prosecution has expressed that this is
H H
accepted and the loss of the victim(s) (ie PW1 and the pawnshop) is further
I reduced. I
J J
22. Another distinguishing feature is that the underlying offence
K in Xiao Wei was a domestic burglary. K
L L
23. In all the circumstances, an immediate custodial sentence is
M necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offence. This court is of the view M
that a starting point of 15 months is appropriate. Whilst the defendant
N N
should not be punished for his past offences, a one month addition should
O be introduced in order to mark the necessity to impose a specific deterrent O
sentence on this repeated offender in the category of dishonesty.
P P
Q 24. This 16-month is reduced to 12 months on the late guilty plea. Q
A further reduction of 2 months is given to reflect the partial restitution.
R R
S 25. There is no basis to further reduce the sentence nor is other S
form of sentence appropriate in the present case.
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
26. The defendant is sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment
C accordingly. C
D D
E E
( Charles J Chan )
F Deputy District Judge F
G G
H H
I I
J 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 291/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1524 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 291 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I DONG JIAHAO I
----------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Charles J Chan K
Date: 3 September 2025
L L
Present: Ms Ng Memi M W, counsel-on-fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Boyton David Rex, instructed by T K Tsui & Co, for the M
defendant
N N
Offence: Handling stolen goods（處理贓物罪）
O O
P P
--------------------------------------
Q Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R
-------------------------------------- R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of handling stolen
C goods, contrary to section 24 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. C
D D
2. Briefly, the Summary of Facts shows that PW1, the victim,
E had lost his Rolex watch (worth HK$117,895) after attending a gathering E
with his friends on 3 September 2022. He was drunk and fell asleep. He
F F
found his watch missing when he woke up in the next morning. He
G checked with the friends but in vain, and then he left the venue of the G
gathering and headed to make a report to the police.
H H
I 3. Two months later, on 22 November 2022, the defendant was I
received by the staff of a pawnshop. The defendant successfully pawned
J J
the watch, the stolen property, at HK$70,000 but the staff was notified by
K the police that the item was a stolen property two days subsequent to the K
visit of the defendant.
L L
M 4. PW1 was called upon to assist in the investigation and he M
positively identified the watch to be his lost property. PW1 confirmed that
N N
he did not know the defendant nor the female who accompanied the
O defendant during his visit. PW1 eventually redeemed the watch from the O
pawnshop at HK$45,000.
P P
Q 5. The defendant was arrested on 4 February 2023. Q
R R
6. Based on the above, the defendant admitted that at the
S material time, he dishonestly received the Rolex watch, a stolen goods, S
being property belonging to PW1, knowing or believing the same to be
T T
stolen goods. The defendant is convicted accordingly.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 7. In mitigation, Mr Boyton fairly acknowledged that the C
defendant does not enjoy a full one-third discount. The late plea of guilty
D D
only warrant a 25% reduction of sentence.
E E
8. Mr Boyton also fairly referred to the previous conviction of
F F
his client, which includes 3 cases and 10 offences, most of them were
G offences of dishonesty. It is emphasized that the defendant is only 25 years G
of age. In other words, he was relatively young when he received a
H H
probation order and a term of incarceration in the Rehabilitation Centre in
I the past, and so when he committed the present offence around 3 years ago. I
J J
9. Further mitigations focused on the proper starting point. Mr
K Boyton submitted that: K
L L
“1. There is no tariff for the offences of “Handling Stolen
Goods”, for each case must depend on its own facts. The offence
M of handling stolen goods carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ M
imprisonment, and “Theft” carries a maximum penalty of 10
N
years’ imprisonment. N
2. Having said that, the oft cited case of R. v. Chan Wing-
O kwan & Anor, CACC 121/1985 (unreported, 28 August 1985), O
appears to lay down a reference for that sentence, where Roberts,
CJ said:
P P
“An examination of a number of other cases of handling
Q of stolen goods shows that the normal bracket of Q
sentences runs between 2 and 4 years. Similarly, other
decisions suggest that the handler of stolen goods can
R normally expect a lesser sentence than those who are R
convicted of the substantive offence of burglary of the
S goods which were subsequently handled.” S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B 3. However, in relation to the majority cases of handling B
stolen goods, that adopt or apply this 2 to 4 year starting point,
C involve an original offence that was far more serious, than in the C
instant case, and invariable the ‘stolen goods’ were the proceeds
of burglaries.”
D D
10. There is no evidence to link the defendant to the theft of the
E E
watch in this case. It is fair to say that there is also no evidence as to how
F the defendant came to be in possession of the watch. F
G G
11. This court however has no hesitation in rejecting the assertion
H that the defendant bought the watch from a friend. He claimed to the police H
that he bought it at HK$70,000. There is simply no reason for him to pawn
I I
it at HK$70,000 shortly afterwards had he bought it at the same price (See
J para 13 of the Summary of Facts). J
K K
12. In any event, the guilty plea confirms that the defendant
L L
committed the offence knowing or believing that the watch was a stolen
M
property. This vitiates whatever assertion he made to the police earlier on. M
N N
13. That being said, this court is prepared to accept that the instant
O case is not about “proceeds of burglaries”. There is no evidence to link the O
defendant to the underlying theft (in whatever form). This case remains
P P
serious however; the offence does not require the proof of that link either.
Q Q
14. Mr Boyton also provided this court with the following cases
R R
and a summary:
S S
“(1) HKSAR v. POON Yu-fai, CACC 36/2011 (unreported 16
T August 2011) which involved a Rolex watch, the proceeds of a T
burglary, which was pawned 6 days later, together with the
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B individual aggravating features of the appellant, resulted in a B
starting point of 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
C C
(2) HKSAR v. XIAO Wei [2003] 3 HKLRD 1063 involved a
stolen watch which originated from a domestic burglary, where
D the Court of Appeal accepted that the appropriate starting point D
was below the band suggested in Chan Wing-kwan, namely 18
E
months. At paragraph 9 of the judgment the following was said: E
“Mr McGowan also invited our attention to a most
F helpful schedule which had been prepared to illustrate F
that, judging from other Court of Appeal decisions, a
starting point of three years or above, in handling cases
G G
arising from burglary or robbery, seemed to be reserved
for more serious offences than the circumstances
H justified in the instant case.” H
(3) LUNG Wei-cheong v. R., CACC 293/1994 (unreported 8
I November 1994) the handler had handed keys to the burgled I
premises and took a share in the stolen goods; and was sentenced
J the same as one of the burglars, namely 3 years’ imprisonment J
(not included in the defendant’s list of authorities).
K (4) R. v. YAU Yu and others, CACC 243/1992 (unreported K
10 February 1993) where the stolen goods originated from a
robbery inside a premises. Of note is at paragraph 12 when the
L L
Court of Appeal referred to CHAN Wing-kwan (above),
considered “No principle emerges from the judgment”.
M M
(5) HKSAR v. KWAN Po-keung [2012] 2 HKLRD 12 the
applicant was convicted of other offences, including obtaining
N property by deception and burglary. For the handling offence, N
the items involved seven stolen credit cards, which infers the
O possibility of further offences being committed by the applicant, O
and on par with a sentence for the possession of stolen credit
cards per se, sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for the
P handling charge.” P
Q Q
15. It appears that the victim was not subjected to violence and
R the theft could be carried out by one single person, seemingly, who was a R
participant in the gathering, who took advantage of the drunken condition
S S
of the victim. This is to a certain extent akin to a breach of trust scenario.
T Nonetheless, there is not an iota of evidence to place that element on the T
defendant before this court.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
16. It should be acknowledged that the value of the stolen
C property is high. Mr Boyton also made reference to a number of cases that C
involved the stealing of valuable property, personal smart phone and credit
D D
card (See HKSAR v Tong Wai Hung HCMA 418/2002; HKSAR v
E Tumendelger Byambadelger CACC 247/2015; HKSAR v Atienza Richard E
Montenegro CACC 38/2016; and HKSAR v Tseveen-Ochir Batjargal
F F
CACC 250/2016). These cases took a much lower starting point of 9
G months’ imprisonment. G
H H
17. Mr Boyton suggested that the present case is akin to a theft by
I finding and requested this court to consider a starting point that is lower I
than 12 months’ imprisonment. Having carefully considered, this court is
J J
not prepared to accept that submission. Nor should the court adopt the
K usual starting point only when the underlying offence is burglary, implying K
that a higher starting point is not justified in other context.
L L
M 18. After all, each case depends on its own facts and features. M
N N
19. In Xiao Wei, the subject stolen goods was a watch and the
O appellant in that case pawned it shortly after the burglary took place. The O
Court of Appeal found that a 3-year starting point was manifestly excessive
P P
and replaced it with a 18 months’ starting point. It is noteworthy that, a
Q number of aggravating factors were deduced from the case of R v Bernard Q
Webbe & Others, cited at 1067G-1068A:
R R
S “(1) The closeness of the handler to the primary offence. (We S
add that closeness may be geographical, arising from
presence at or near the primary offence when it was
T committed, or temporal, where the handler instigated or T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B encouraged the primary offence beforehand, or, soon B
after, provided a safe haven or route for disposal).
C C
(2) Particular seriousness in the primary offence.
D (3) High value of the goods to the loser, including D
sentimental value.
E E
(4) The fact that the goods were the proceeds of a domestic
burglary.
F F
(5) Sophistication in relation to the handling.
G G
(6) A high level of profit made or expected by the handler.
H (7) The provision by the handler of a regular outlet for stolen H
goods.
I (8) Threats of violence or abuse of power by the handler I
over others, for example, an adult commissioning
J criminal activity by children, or a drug dealer J
pressurising addicts to steal in order to pay for their habit.
K (9) As is statutorily provided by s. 151(2) of the Powers of K
Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the commission
of an offence while on bail.
L L
The Court went on (in paras. 21-22) to say:
M M
We also agree with the mitigating factors identified as being
among those relevant … namely, low monetary value of the
N goods, the fact that the offence was a one-off offence, committed N
by an otherwise honest defendant, the fact that there is little or
O no benefit to the defendant, and the fact of voluntary restitution O
to the victim.
P We also agree … that other factors to be taken into account P
include personal mitigation, ready co-operation with the police,
Q
previous convictions, especially for offences of dishonestly Q
and … a timely plea of guilty.”
R R
20. The Court of Appeal added that, “the applicant revealed a
S considerable lack of sophistication in his method of converting the stolen S
watch into a sum of money when providing details about himself through
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
which he could be (as indeed he was) traced (at #11).” This is what had
C happened in the present case. C
D D
21. Conversely, the value of the stolen goods is higher in the
E present case. It is only fortunate that the victim had already retrieved it. E
As a result of the negotiation between the pawnshop and the victim, the
F F
loss of the victim is limited to $45,000 whereas, the pawnshop suffers a
G loss of $25,000 ($70,000 - $45,000 = $25,000). The defendant offered a G
restitution of HK$40,000. The prosecution has expressed that this is
H H
accepted and the loss of the victim(s) (ie PW1 and the pawnshop) is further
I reduced. I
J J
22. Another distinguishing feature is that the underlying offence
K in Xiao Wei was a domestic burglary. K
L L
23. In all the circumstances, an immediate custodial sentence is
M necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offence. This court is of the view M
that a starting point of 15 months is appropriate. Whilst the defendant
N N
should not be punished for his past offences, a one month addition should
O be introduced in order to mark the necessity to impose a specific deterrent O
sentence on this repeated offender in the category of dishonesty.
P P
Q 24. This 16-month is reduced to 12 months on the late guilty plea. Q
A further reduction of 2 months is given to reflect the partial restitution.
R R
S 25. There is no basis to further reduce the sentence nor is other S
form of sentence appropriate in the present case.
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
26. The defendant is sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment
C accordingly. C
D D
E E
( Charles J Chan )
F Deputy District Judge F
G G
H H
I I
J 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