Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Theft by finding

Legal area

Court

13 Dec 2024

HKSAR v. CHAN PUI YU

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3560
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA151/2024

The magistrate's rejection of the appellant's account was supported by cogent, case-specific reasons; with no acceptable evidence to weaken the prosecution case the only reasonable inference was that the appellant acted dishonestly with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the phone, and on rehearing the judge was satisfied guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the conviction is upheld.
13 Dec 2024

HKSAR v. MCENTEGART, MARTIN CHRISTIAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 318
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA223/2024

Because the CCTV and case history established deliberate provocation by the victim and a pre-existing hostile relationship, those mitigating features materially distinguished this theft from ordinary mobile phone theft and justified reducing the immediate custodial term to a one‑month imprisonment suspended for 12 months.
10 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. SHIV KUMAR

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3253
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA38/2021

The court dismissed the appeal because the magistrate's credibility findings accepting the police evidence and rejecting the appellant's account were open to him on the evidence, the prosecution proved the elements of theft and unlawful possession beyond reasonable doubt (applying the Ghosh test for dishonesty), the failure to record every supplemental question did not render the trial unfair, and the sentences (3 months for theft and 18 months for possession, ordered concurrent) and the use of the Li Chang Li guideline were lawful and not excessive.
22 Dec 2016

HKSAR v. TSEVEEN-OCHIR BATJARGAL

Citation

HKSAR v. TSEVEEN-OCHIR BATJARGAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC250/2016

Leave to appeal against sentence refused because the sentencing judge correctly applied established principles for credit card fraud, selected unimpeachable starting points (30 months for attempted obtaining property by deception and 9 months for theft by finding), applied appropriate plea discounts, and properly rejected familial or financial hardship as sufficient to reduce an otherwise appropriate deterrent sentence; concurrent ordering was appropriate.
16 Dec 2016

HKSAR v. BUTT, UMMAR

Citation

HKSAR v. BUTT, UMMAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA344/2016

The High Court accepted the arresting officer as a credible witness, accepted the appellant's admission that he had found the cards, and on the totality of circumstances (cards retained in separate slots, nervous conduct, failure to hand them to police and inability to contact owner) concluded the magistrate correctly applied the Ghosh test and convicted the appellant; the appeal was dismissed.
22 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. ATIENZA RICHARD MONTENEGRO

Citation

HKSAR v. ATIENZA RICHARD MONTENEGRO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC38/2016

The Court held the sentencing approach and starting points were appropriate but that additional restitution paid after sentence justified a further reduction of two months' imprisonment on Charges 4 to 12; accordingly it quashed the 21-month sentences on those charges and imposed 19-month sentences, resulting in a revised total sentence of 22 months' imprisonment, and granted leave to appeal against sentence.
30 Aug 2016

HKSAR v. RAI KAMAL

Citation

HKSAR v. RAI KAMAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA366/2016

The magistrate was entitled to accept the police evidence, to infer dishonesty from the appellant's possession of another's identity documents and his failure to report or mention them, and to infer an intention to permanently deprive; those findings supported the conviction and are not plainly wrong, so the appeal is dismissed.
17 May 2016

HKSAR v. ATIENZA RICHARD MONTENEGRO

Citation

HKSAR v. ATIENZA RICHARD MONTENEGRO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC38/2016

The Court refused leave to appeal because the sentencing judge's adopted starting points and discounts (including a specific credit for partial restitution and a limited consecutive element for theft of the card) were within a proper range, the partial restitution had been accounted for, the applicant's new factual allegations were unsubstantiated and should have been advanced below, and there was no arguable basis to conclude the total sentence of two years was manifestly excessive.
3 Dec 2015

HKSAR v. TUMENDELGER BYAMBADELGER

Citation

HKSAR v. TUMENDELGER BYAMBADELGER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC247/2015

Given four separate thefts of valuable mobile phones in a busy bar and the judge's appropriate application of starting points, aggravating features and plea discounts subject to the principle of totality, a global sentence of 24 months imprisonment after plea was not manifestly excessive; the application for leave to appeal against sentence is therefore refused.
9 Sept 2015

HKSAR v. AHMAD FIAZ

Citation

HKSAR v. AHMAD FIAZ
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA400/2015

The magistrate's credibility findings were not plainly wrong; the appellant was properly found dishonest with intent to permanently deprive by keeping the cash and phones while discarding or giving away other items, and the sentence of 7 months (starting point 8 months reduced for clear record) was not manifestly excessive, therefore the appeal is dismissed.