By Daisy CL Mandap
 |
| Accessories used by Nones on dates with her boyfriend were taken from her, says employer |
Filipina domestic helper Carmelita Galay Nones who stole at
least $14.6 million worth of jewelry and some cash from her employers of 10
years did not deserve a discount in her sentence for supposed “good character".
This was among the reasons cited by the Court of Appeal in
the reasons for judgment it handed down yesterday, Oct. 24, to explain its
decision on Jul 19 to raise Nones’ jail term from four years, 11 months, to six
years and four months, or an increase of 17 months.
The appeal against the sentence was filed by the Justice
Department, on the ground that it was manifestly inadequate and wrong in
principle.
In upholding the appeal, the CA said it has repeatedly
stressed that family circumstances should be disregarded in sentencing when a serious crime is
involved.
“The fact of the matter is that many people face financial
difficulties but do not resort to crime,” said the court.
Besides, the 5% discount in the sentence that High Court
Judge Andrew Bruce gave Nones was said to be not based on concrete or reliable
evidence.
 |
| Nones' employers had to pay $1.45 million to recover some of the jewelry stolen from them |
According to her lawyer, Nones, 47, stole from her employers David Liang and his
wife, over a 15-month period to pay off loans she incurred for the medical
treatment of her mother who had kidney problems.
“However, there was simply no evidence that the proceeds of
the stolen property had been used to pay the mother’s medical expenses or loans
taken out for that purpose,” said the court.
“The only evidence before the court was that the mother
suffered with a renal disease and had required dialysis treatment since 2014,
and as a result of her condition the mother passed away in November 2019.”
The CA also pointed out that the lower court appeared to
have disregarded certain facts that negated the view that Nones was of good
moral character.
“It seems to have been overlooked that a substantial
proportion of the stolen property had not been pawned as they had been held by
the respondent or her sister. This is a
relevant consideration in respect of whether the respondent stole all these
items for the sole purpose of paying for her mother’s medical expenses,” said
the court.
“Furthermore, had it not been for the police intervention in
this case, the respondent would more than likely have continued stealing and
accumulating property from the victims.”
 |
| Gold coins and gold bars were also stolen by Nones from her employers |
The CA also held that the trial judge erred in not taking
into consideration several factors that aggravated Nones’ offence: (1) First,
she had carefully planned and executed the thefts and disposal of the stolen
property; (2) She stole repeatedly over a 15-month period; (3) She used her
cousin and niece to pawn the stolen items to hide her involvement; (4) She
repeatedly lied to Mrs Liang whenever she was asked about the missing items;
(5) The thefts caused a massive trauma on her employers, particularly Mrs Liang,
“who was emotionally shattered by the incident”; (6) some of the items,
including some that had a sentimental value to the wife, have not been
recovered; (7) the victims had to pay $1.45 million to redeem the pawned items.
“We have no hesitation in characterising the respondent’s
conduct as devious and manipulative.
Behind the veneer of a trusted and faithful employee, she systematically
planned and executed a series of thefts of numerous valuable items from her
employer,” said the CA.
Further, the CA said the judge was wrong in taking an
overall approach to sentencing, and then substantially discounting the sentence
with hardly any justification.
What the judge should have done was to consider each of the
theft charges in chronological order, then imposed a sentence accordingly. He
should then consider the total sentences in order to arrive at a just and
proportionate sentence.
Following this guideline, the CA said the correct starting
point for the sentence was 10 years 6 months’ imprisonment, which it then
reduced by one third for the respondent’s guilty plea, making a total of
7 years’ imprisonment.
However, given the substantial increase in the sentence, the
CA said it was discounting it by a further eight months. "We are prepared to
discount the sentence we should impose by a further 8 months, thus reducing the
sentence to 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment," the CA said.
 |
| Mrs Liang says the items encircled in the photo belong to her daughter, but Nones claims they were given to her |
Nones had worked as a domestic helper for the Liangs for
about 10 years when she started stealing valuable personal items from them at
their Deepwater Bay home between May 2018 and September
2019, most of which she pawned either by herself or through her niece (D2) and
her cousin (D3).
She also gave a a number of the items, valued at more than $4 million, to
her sister, for safekeeping.
The thefts were uncovered as a result of a routine
inspection by the police at a pawnshop in July 2019, when they noticed
suspicious pawn records concerning Nones.
Officers visited the Liangs at their home on Sept 4, 2019
and the couple confirmed ownership of the pawned items and denied giving them
to the respondent.
As a result, Nones was arrested and a search of her room
yielded more stolen jewels and a quantity of pawn tickets in the names of D2
and D3.
Her co-accused later admitted pawning the stolen items for
the Nones and returned the pawn tickets and all the money they received to her.
Nones was subsequently charged with six counts of theft.
The first involved a total of 8 necklaces, 7 bangles, 11
pairs of earrings, a single earring, 2 bracelets, a 50-gram gold bar, a
187-gram gold bar, 10 rings and 31 gold coins, all worth a total of $6,082,000.
A value could not be ascertained for one item, a gold and diamond ring which
Nones had pawned on Jun 10, 2019.
The items were stolen between Jun 17, 2018 and Jul 27, 2019,
and were pawned at five different pawnshops for which a total of 25 pawn
tickets were issued.
Nones received a total sum of $688,850 in cash for the
pawned items. Mrs Liang had to pay $891,160.50 to redeem some of the stolen items,
but the rest, consisting of 9 pairs of earrings, a diamond gold ring, a
necklace, 2 bangles, 5 rings and a bracelet, could not be redeemed.
For count 2, Nones pawned two Patek Philippe watches
belonging to Mr Liang, valued at $200,000, for which she received a sum of
$17,000 in cash. The watches were not recovered.
For count 3, Nones stole, between Jun 1, 2019 and Sept 4,
2019 a watch, two bangles seven earrings and a necklace, all belonging to Mrs
Liang. These were the items found in Nones’ room by the police on Sept 4, 2019.
Count 4 relates to the items that Nones entrusted to her
sister, Marina Biala, worth a total of $4,818,400. They consisted of 23
necklaces, three bracelets, 11 pairs of earrings, a single earring a brooch, 11
pendants, five rings, three watchs, two bangles, lai see packets that had
contained $4,000 cash, Chanel jewelry valued at $120,000 and costume jewelry
worth $3,000. All of the items, except for the $4,000 cash, were turned over by
Biala to the Liangs on Sept 5, 2019.
When asked how Nones was able to steal so many valuable
items from them over a long period of time, Mrs Liang said it was because she
trusted the helper completely.
“When she found something missing, the respondent would
often imply that the wife had misplaced the item because of her
forgetfulness, and she readily believed her.
On other occasions, the respondent would insinuate that one of the other
helpers had taken the item or when she pressed the respondent about the matter
the items would reappear,” said the CA.
 |
| Nones denies owning this house in a photo submitted by Mrs Liang to court |
In an impact statement she submitted to court, Mrs Liang
said she found a number of photos that Nones had posted on Facebook and other
websites showing her going on holiday with her employers’ suitcases, lying on
the bed of her employers’ daughter, displaying thousand dollar notes; dressed
up in the daughter’s clothes and wearing her jewelry, her son holding up Mr
Liang’s expensive camera; and posing with her boyfriend Eldon wearing clothes
and accessories belonging to Mrs Liang and her daughter.
Mrs Liang also submitted pictures of houses, land, and cars,
which she claimed Nones had bought in the Philippines
for herself, her family and her boyfriend, Eldon, who also works in Hong Kong.
However, Nones’ lawyer dismissed Mrs Liang’s assertions as
false, saying that the clothes and accessories that the helper had accused of
stealing were in fact given to her. The camera that her son was seen holding up
in the photo was said to have been discarded by Mr Liang.
As for the houses, land and car, the defense lawyer said
none was in the name of Nones and her family. Prosecution did not challenge the
assertion, saying Hong Kong courts had no
jurisdiction over properties found outside of the territory.
