區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge K K Leung22/1/2026[2026] HKDC 210
DCCC99/2025
A A
B B
DCCC 99/2025
C [2026] HKDC 210 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 99 OF 2025
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I TAM CHUN LEUNG (D1) I
---------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge K K Leung K
Date: 23 January 2026
L L
Present: Ms Stephanie Kong, Public Prosecutor of Department of
M Justice, for HKSAR M
Miss Tse Rui Teng, Tania instructed by Chiu, Szeto &
N N
Cheng, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st
O defendant O
Offence: Handling stolen goods (處理贓物罪)
P P
Q Q
----------------------------------------
R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE R
----------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. There are two defendants (D1-D2) in this case. D2’s sentence
C had been dealt with. This is the sentence of D1. C
D D
2. D1 pleaded guilty to an amended charge of handling stolen
E goods1. The particulars of the charge stated that between on or about 16 E
August 2024 and 8 September 2024, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong,
F F
D1 dishonestly assisted in the retention, removal, disposal, or realization of
G certain stolen goods, namely 40 bottles of liquor, 150 discs, legal tender G
coins in the sum of about $4,000 Hong Kong currency, one set of
H H
commemorative stamps and one vinyl record player, by or for the benefit
I of another, or dishonestly arranged so to do, knowing or believing the same I
to be stolen goods.
J J
K SUMMARY OF FACTS K
L L
3. Mr Leung (‘PW1’) has been in possession of Room B, 1st
M Floor, Yan Fat Building, Nos 39-41 Shek Kip Mei Street, Sham Shui Po, M
Kowloon, Hong Kong (‘the Flat’) since the passing of his mother, the
N N
original owner, in June 2022. The Flat was used mainly to store the
O belongings of PW1’s mother and was otherwise vacant since then. O
P P
4. In mid-August 2024, PW1 went into the Flat for an inspection
Q and found that things there were in order. PW1 then made sure that all Q
windows and the wooden front door were locked before leaving. The metal
R R
gate outside the wooden front door to the Flat was never locked as the lock
S was faulty. S
T T
1
Contrary to section 24(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. On 6 September 2024 at around 2:45 pm, PW1 returned to the
C Flat for an inspection and found that the wooden front door could not be C
pushed open. Neither the metal gate nor the wooden front door had any
D D
signs of tampering. PW1 then arranged for a locksmith to open the wooden
E front door. Upon entering the Flat, PW1 found that the Flat had been E
ransacked, each of the windows had been opened, and one of the windows
F F
had fallen off its frame and landed on an air conditioner compressor outside
G the Flat. PW1 reported the case to police on the same day. G
H H
6. PW1 then tallied up the properties in the Flat and found that
I items worth a total of HK$53,500 were missing (‘Missing Properties’): I
J J
(i) 40 bottles of liquor worth HK40,000;
K K
(ii) 150 disc worth HK$7,500;
L L
M (iii) legal tender coins in the sum of around HK$4,000; M
N N
(iv) A set of commemorative stamps worth HK$2,000; and
O O
(v) A vinyl record player.
P P
Q D1 Q
R R
7. On 8 September 2024, police attended the Flat for an
S investigation and found a locked room in a nearby stairwell at 1-3 Un Chau S
Street (‘Storeroom 1’). That same day, police went back to 1-3 Un Chau
T T
Street for an anti-burglary patrol and saw the wooden door to Storeroom 1
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
half-closed. D1 was sitting on a sofa outside Storeroom 1 and opening a
C box of liquor. C
D D
8. Upon search of Storeroom 1, police found 17 bottles of Henri
E De Malrome XO spirits and 13 bottles of Marquis de Vernuiset dessert wine E
(‘Storeroom 1 Items’). With the consent of D1, PW2 inspected D1’s
F F
smartphone and found photos of Henri De Malrome XO spirits and Marquis
G de Vernuiset dessert wine taken on 17 and 26 August 2024. D1 was arrested G
and cautioned.
H H
I 9. PW1 later identified the Storeroom 1 Items as part of the I
Missing Properties. The rest of the Missing Properties could not be
J J
recovered.
K K
10. At all material times, D1 was in possession of Storeroom 1.
L L
He assisted in or arranged for the retention, removal, disposal, or realization
M of the Missing Properties, knowing the same to be stolen goods. M
N N
CRIMINAL RECORD AND BACKGROUND OF THE DEFENDANT
O O
11. D1 has 13 previous convictions involving 17 charges, 9 of
P P
them are related to dishonesty. The offences include: possession of an
Q identity card relating to another person, possession of dangerous drug, theft, Q
attempt theft, resisting a police officer in execution of duty, common
R R
assault, possession of offensive weapon in a public place and burglary.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
MITIGATION
C C
12. D1 is 49 years old. D1 was born in the mainland China. He
D D
arrived in Hong Kong in the 2000s and worked as a free lance home
E renovation worker since then. D1 is a registered electronic worker. He E
earned around HK$10,000 per month. D1 divorced in 2017 and has 2
F F
daughters aged 14 and 18. The 2 daughters had an uneventful and healthy
G upbringing under the care of D1’s ex-wife. D1 supported them financially. G
Mitigation letter of D1 and officer from the Hong Kong Christian Kun Sun
H H
Association were submitted.
I I
13. In mitigation, Ms Tse submitted that D1 committed the present
J J
offence purely out of greed. He intended to sell the Missing Properties in
K return for money to pay for living expenses. D1 is very remorseful during K
this time in prison and is very ashamed to face his daughters.
L L
M 14. Ms Tse further submitted that D1 understood that custodial M
sentence would be inevitable. D1 invited the court to adopt a starting point
N N
of 12 months in relation to the charge, as the most valuable items in the
O Missing Properties were the spirits therein with an estimated value of O
HK$40,000, and 30 out of 40 were recovered. (HKSAR v Raman Kumar
P P
CACC 324/ 2017 para 8). Although it cannot be denied that D1 does not
Q have an unblemished criminal record, D1 asked the court to exercise Q
leniency without enhancing the sentence.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
SENTENCE
C C
15. The maximum penalty for handling stolen goods is 14 years’
D D
imprisonment. There is no sentencing tariff for this offence. The usual
E sentence is between 2 and 4 years. (See HKSAR v Poon Yiu Fai (潘耀輝) E
CACC 36/2011 para 18)2.
F F
G 16. In R v Bernard Webbe & Others [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 22 the G
Court of Appeal identified factors that would be regarded as aggravating.
H H
The nine aggravating factors identified in Webbe are intended to provide
I assistance to the court in gauging the level of seriousness of the handler’s I
activities:
J J
K (1) The closeness of the handler to the primary offence K
(closeness may be geographical, arising from
L L
presence at or near the primary offence when it was
M committed, or temporal, where the handler instigated M
or encouraged the primary offence beforehand, or,
N N
soon after, provided a safe haven or route for
O O
disposal).
P P
(2) Particular seriousness in the primary offence.
Q Q
R
(3) High value of the goods to the loser, including R
sentimental value.
S S
2
See HKSAR v Poon Yiu Fai (潘耀輝) CACC 36/2011 para 18, “There is no tariff in cases of this kind.
T T
The Ordinance, however, provides for a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment while this
Court, in R v Chan Wing Kwan and Another CACC 121/1985 recognised that the normal bracket of
sentences will be between two and four years.”
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C (4) The fact that the goods were the proceeds of a C
domestic burglary.
D D
E (5) Sophistication in relation to the handling. E
F F
(6) A high level of profit made or expected by the
G handler. G
H H
(7) The provision by the handler of a regular outlet for
I stolen goods. I
J J
(8) Threats of violence or abuse of power by the handler
K over others, for example, an adult commissioning K
criminal activity by children, or a drug dealer
L L
pressurising addicts to steal in order to pay for their
M habit. M
N N
(9) As is statutorily provided by s.151(2) of the Powers
O of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the O
commissions of an offence while on bail.
P P
Q 17. Webbe also identified factors that might mitigate the offence: Q
namely, low monetary value of the goods, the fact that the offence was a
R R
one-off offence, committed by an otherwise honest defendant, the fact that
S there is little or no benefit to the defendant, and the fact of voluntary S
restitution to the victim. Other factors to be taken into account include
T T
personal mitigation, ready cooperation with the police, previous
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
convictions, especially for offences of dishonesty and, as statutorily
C provided by s 152 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, C
a timely plea of guilty.
D D
E 18. In HKSAR v Xiao Wei [2003] 3 HKLRD 1063, a 21-year-old E
male from Mainland China, handled stolen goods by pawning a stolen
F F
watch in Mongkok for $3,500, only six hours after the domestic burglary
G during which the watch was stolen. The Court of Appeal held a starting G
point of 18 months imprisonment (before enhancement) was more
H H
appropriate.
I I
19. In HKSAR v Raman Kumar, the authority which was cited by
J J
the defence, the concerned stolen property was a mobile telephone valued
K at $5,500. The Court of Appeal confirmed that it was appropriate to adopt K
a starting point of 12 months imprisonment. In this case, however, the total
L L
sum of the value of goods was $53,500.
M M
20. In the present case of D1, the concerned stolen goods were 40
N N
bottles of liquor worth HK40,000; 150 disc worth HK$7,500; legal tender
O coins in the sum of around HK$4,000; a set of commemorative stamps O
worth HK$2,000; and 1 vinyl record player. Though 30 out of 40 bottles
P P
of liquor were recovered, the remainder of the Missing Items could not be
Q found. It also has to be noted that the Flat was used mainly to store the Q
belongings of PW1’s late mother. The consideration of the value of the
R R
goods may also include its sentimental value to the owner. Nevertheless, I
S bear in mind that the value of the property assessed is only one of the factors S
that go towards a determination of the seriousness of the handling (See
T T
HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 360 para 65).
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
C 21. As put forward by the defence in mitigation, D1 intended to C
sell the Missing Properties in return for money. Though it was his intention
D D
that the money used was for living expenses, I have to consider the level of
E profit made or expected by the handler (see the 6th factor of Webbe). Also, E
according to the facts of the case, the location of Storeroom 1 was in the
F F
proximity of the Flat geographically.
G G
22. Taking into account of the nature of the offence that D1 was
H H
facing, the facts of the case admitted, the background of D1, the mitigation
I submitted by the defence, relevant authorities and that he is a man with I
previous convictions for dishonesty, I adopt a starting point of 15 months
J J
imprisonment, after one-third discount upon D1’s guilty plea, the sentence
K is 10 months’ imprisonment. K
L L
23. There is no other mitigating factor which justifies a further
M reduction of sentence. M
N N
CONCLUSION
O O
24. The sentence of D1 is 10 months’ imprisonment.
P P
Q Q
R R
( K K Leung )
S
Deputy District Judge S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 99/2025
C [2026] HKDC 210 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 99 OF 2025
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I TAM CHUN LEUNG (D1) I
---------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge K K Leung K
Date: 23 January 2026
L L
Present: Ms Stephanie Kong, Public Prosecutor of Department of
M Justice, for HKSAR M
Miss Tse Rui Teng, Tania instructed by Chiu, Szeto &
N N
Cheng, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st
O defendant O
Offence: Handling stolen goods (處理贓物罪)
P P
Q Q
----------------------------------------
R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE R
----------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. There are two defendants (D1-D2) in this case. D2’s sentence
C had been dealt with. This is the sentence of D1. C
D D
2. D1 pleaded guilty to an amended charge of handling stolen
E goods1. The particulars of the charge stated that between on or about 16 E
August 2024 and 8 September 2024, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong,
F F
D1 dishonestly assisted in the retention, removal, disposal, or realization of
G certain stolen goods, namely 40 bottles of liquor, 150 discs, legal tender G
coins in the sum of about $4,000 Hong Kong currency, one set of
H H
commemorative stamps and one vinyl record player, by or for the benefit
I of another, or dishonestly arranged so to do, knowing or believing the same I
to be stolen goods.
J J
K SUMMARY OF FACTS K
L L
3. Mr Leung (‘PW1’) has been in possession of Room B, 1st
M Floor, Yan Fat Building, Nos 39-41 Shek Kip Mei Street, Sham Shui Po, M
Kowloon, Hong Kong (‘the Flat’) since the passing of his mother, the
N N
original owner, in June 2022. The Flat was used mainly to store the
O belongings of PW1’s mother and was otherwise vacant since then. O
P P
4. In mid-August 2024, PW1 went into the Flat for an inspection
Q and found that things there were in order. PW1 then made sure that all Q
windows and the wooden front door were locked before leaving. The metal
R R
gate outside the wooden front door to the Flat was never locked as the lock
S was faulty. S
T T
1
Contrary to section 24(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. On 6 September 2024 at around 2:45 pm, PW1 returned to the
C Flat for an inspection and found that the wooden front door could not be C
pushed open. Neither the metal gate nor the wooden front door had any
D D
signs of tampering. PW1 then arranged for a locksmith to open the wooden
E front door. Upon entering the Flat, PW1 found that the Flat had been E
ransacked, each of the windows had been opened, and one of the windows
F F
had fallen off its frame and landed on an air conditioner compressor outside
G the Flat. PW1 reported the case to police on the same day. G
H H
6. PW1 then tallied up the properties in the Flat and found that
I items worth a total of HK$53,500 were missing (‘Missing Properties’): I
J J
(i) 40 bottles of liquor worth HK40,000;
K K
(ii) 150 disc worth HK$7,500;
L L
M (iii) legal tender coins in the sum of around HK$4,000; M
N N
(iv) A set of commemorative stamps worth HK$2,000; and
O O
(v) A vinyl record player.
P P
Q D1 Q
R R
7. On 8 September 2024, police attended the Flat for an
S investigation and found a locked room in a nearby stairwell at 1-3 Un Chau S
Street (‘Storeroom 1’). That same day, police went back to 1-3 Un Chau
T T
Street for an anti-burglary patrol and saw the wooden door to Storeroom 1
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
half-closed. D1 was sitting on a sofa outside Storeroom 1 and opening a
C box of liquor. C
D D
8. Upon search of Storeroom 1, police found 17 bottles of Henri
E De Malrome XO spirits and 13 bottles of Marquis de Vernuiset dessert wine E
(‘Storeroom 1 Items’). With the consent of D1, PW2 inspected D1’s
F F
smartphone and found photos of Henri De Malrome XO spirits and Marquis
G de Vernuiset dessert wine taken on 17 and 26 August 2024. D1 was arrested G
and cautioned.
H H
I 9. PW1 later identified the Storeroom 1 Items as part of the I
Missing Properties. The rest of the Missing Properties could not be
J J
recovered.
K K
10. At all material times, D1 was in possession of Storeroom 1.
L L
He assisted in or arranged for the retention, removal, disposal, or realization
M of the Missing Properties, knowing the same to be stolen goods. M
N N
CRIMINAL RECORD AND BACKGROUND OF THE DEFENDANT
O O
11. D1 has 13 previous convictions involving 17 charges, 9 of
P P
them are related to dishonesty. The offences include: possession of an
Q identity card relating to another person, possession of dangerous drug, theft, Q
attempt theft, resisting a police officer in execution of duty, common
R R
assault, possession of offensive weapon in a public place and burglary.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
MITIGATION
C C
12. D1 is 49 years old. D1 was born in the mainland China. He
D D
arrived in Hong Kong in the 2000s and worked as a free lance home
E renovation worker since then. D1 is a registered electronic worker. He E
earned around HK$10,000 per month. D1 divorced in 2017 and has 2
F F
daughters aged 14 and 18. The 2 daughters had an uneventful and healthy
G upbringing under the care of D1’s ex-wife. D1 supported them financially. G
Mitigation letter of D1 and officer from the Hong Kong Christian Kun Sun
H H
Association were submitted.
I I
13. In mitigation, Ms Tse submitted that D1 committed the present
J J
offence purely out of greed. He intended to sell the Missing Properties in
K return for money to pay for living expenses. D1 is very remorseful during K
this time in prison and is very ashamed to face his daughters.
L L
M 14. Ms Tse further submitted that D1 understood that custodial M
sentence would be inevitable. D1 invited the court to adopt a starting point
N N
of 12 months in relation to the charge, as the most valuable items in the
O Missing Properties were the spirits therein with an estimated value of O
HK$40,000, and 30 out of 40 were recovered. (HKSAR v Raman Kumar
P P
CACC 324/ 2017 para 8). Although it cannot be denied that D1 does not
Q have an unblemished criminal record, D1 asked the court to exercise Q
leniency without enhancing the sentence.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
SENTENCE
C C
15. The maximum penalty for handling stolen goods is 14 years’
D D
imprisonment. There is no sentencing tariff for this offence. The usual
E sentence is between 2 and 4 years. (See HKSAR v Poon Yiu Fai (潘耀輝) E
CACC 36/2011 para 18)2.
F F
G 16. In R v Bernard Webbe & Others [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 22 the G
Court of Appeal identified factors that would be regarded as aggravating.
H H
The nine aggravating factors identified in Webbe are intended to provide
I assistance to the court in gauging the level of seriousness of the handler’s I
activities:
J J
K (1) The closeness of the handler to the primary offence K
(closeness may be geographical, arising from
L L
presence at or near the primary offence when it was
M committed, or temporal, where the handler instigated M
or encouraged the primary offence beforehand, or,
N N
soon after, provided a safe haven or route for
O O
disposal).
P P
(2) Particular seriousness in the primary offence.
Q Q
R
(3) High value of the goods to the loser, including R
sentimental value.
S S
2
See HKSAR v Poon Yiu Fai (潘耀輝) CACC 36/2011 para 18, “There is no tariff in cases of this kind.
T T
The Ordinance, however, provides for a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment while this
Court, in R v Chan Wing Kwan and Another CACC 121/1985 recognised that the normal bracket of
sentences will be between two and four years.”
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C (4) The fact that the goods were the proceeds of a C
domestic burglary.
D D
E (5) Sophistication in relation to the handling. E
F F
(6) A high level of profit made or expected by the
G handler. G
H H
(7) The provision by the handler of a regular outlet for
I stolen goods. I
J J
(8) Threats of violence or abuse of power by the handler
K over others, for example, an adult commissioning K
criminal activity by children, or a drug dealer
L L
pressurising addicts to steal in order to pay for their
M habit. M
N N
(9) As is statutorily provided by s.151(2) of the Powers
O of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the O
commissions of an offence while on bail.
P P
Q 17. Webbe also identified factors that might mitigate the offence: Q
namely, low monetary value of the goods, the fact that the offence was a
R R
one-off offence, committed by an otherwise honest defendant, the fact that
S there is little or no benefit to the defendant, and the fact of voluntary S
restitution to the victim. Other factors to be taken into account include
T T
personal mitigation, ready cooperation with the police, previous
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
convictions, especially for offences of dishonesty and, as statutorily
C provided by s 152 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, C
a timely plea of guilty.
D D
E 18. In HKSAR v Xiao Wei [2003] 3 HKLRD 1063, a 21-year-old E
male from Mainland China, handled stolen goods by pawning a stolen
F F
watch in Mongkok for $3,500, only six hours after the domestic burglary
G during which the watch was stolen. The Court of Appeal held a starting G
point of 18 months imprisonment (before enhancement) was more
H H
appropriate.
I I
19. In HKSAR v Raman Kumar, the authority which was cited by
J J
the defence, the concerned stolen property was a mobile telephone valued
K at $5,500. The Court of Appeal confirmed that it was appropriate to adopt K
a starting point of 12 months imprisonment. In this case, however, the total
L L
sum of the value of goods was $53,500.
M M
20. In the present case of D1, the concerned stolen goods were 40
N N
bottles of liquor worth HK40,000; 150 disc worth HK$7,500; legal tender
O coins in the sum of around HK$4,000; a set of commemorative stamps O
worth HK$2,000; and 1 vinyl record player. Though 30 out of 40 bottles
P P
of liquor were recovered, the remainder of the Missing Items could not be
Q found. It also has to be noted that the Flat was used mainly to store the Q
belongings of PW1’s late mother. The consideration of the value of the
R R
goods may also include its sentimental value to the owner. Nevertheless, I
S bear in mind that the value of the property assessed is only one of the factors S
that go towards a determination of the seriousness of the handling (See
T T
HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 360 para 65).
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
C 21. As put forward by the defence in mitigation, D1 intended to C
sell the Missing Properties in return for money. Though it was his intention
D D
that the money used was for living expenses, I have to consider the level of
E profit made or expected by the handler (see the 6th factor of Webbe). Also, E
according to the facts of the case, the location of Storeroom 1 was in the
F F
proximity of the Flat geographically.
G G
22. Taking into account of the nature of the offence that D1 was
H H
facing, the facts of the case admitted, the background of D1, the mitigation
I submitted by the defence, relevant authorities and that he is a man with I
previous convictions for dishonesty, I adopt a starting point of 15 months
J J
imprisonment, after one-third discount upon D1’s guilty plea, the sentence
K is 10 months’ imprisonment. K
L L
23. There is no other mitigating factor which justifies a further
M reduction of sentence. M
N N
CONCLUSION
O O
24. The sentence of D1 is 10 months’ imprisonment.
P P
Q Q
R R
( K K Leung )
S
Deputy District Judge S
T T
U U
V V