Handling Stolen Goods

Handling Stolen Goods

“Handling Stolen Goods” is an offence contrary to section 24 of the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210). The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment. 

The first element of the offence is that the goods in question are stolen goods. “Stolen goods” includes property that has been stolen in a theft, robbery, or burglary, or obtained by other dishonest means (for example, deception or fraud). It is immaterial whether the theft happened abroad or in Hong Kong. Further, the term “stolen goods” includes not only the original property being stolen, but also any property that directly or indirectly represents the stolen goods (e.g., money or other assets obtained from selling or disposing of the stolen goods). 

The second element is that the accused actually handled the stolen goods. Handling must be done “otherwise than in the course of the stealing”. Stealing is the act of taking someone else’s property. Handling is what happens after the theft. In other words, handling must be a separate step from the actual theft, such as receiving or dealing with the goods after they have been stolen.

Handling is not only limited to the person physically and personally receiving the goods, but also arranging someone to receive the goods. For example, if stolen goods are found on the defendant’s premises while he is absent, it must be proved that he became aware of their presence and exercised some control over them, or that they arrived there at his invitation and by arrangement with him. Similarly, if delivery is accepted by a servant in the master’s absence, the master can be convicted if there is evidence that he authorised or instructed the servant to accept the goods. In addition, if a person undertook, assisted or arranged the retention, removal, disposal or realisation of the stolen goods, his actions would still be considered as handling the stolen goods. 

The third element is dishonesty, which has the same test under the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210), meaning the defendant’s conduct must be judged against the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, and whether the defendant knew that others would regard the conduct as dishonest. The person must be dishonestly handling the stolen goods. A person does not act dishonestly if, for example, he genuinely believes that he has a legal right to the goods or that the owner would agree to the conduct if aware of it.

Lastly, the person must have known or believed that the goods were stolen. It is not necessary for him to know the precise nature of the goods or the circumstances in which they were stolen. Therefore, if a person held the belief that he has a right to the goods he was handling, then he cannot be said as handling stolen goods. Suspicion alone is not enough. Even if the person suspects the goods are stolen and deliberately ignores the circumstances, that by itself does not prove the necessary knowledge or belief. However, such suspicion and deliberate ignorance can still be considered by a jury when deciding whether the defendant did in fact know or believe the goods were stolen.

However, where a defendant is found in possession of recently stolen property, the Court may draw an inference that the defendant has the knowledge if (1) he offered no explanation why he has possession of the property or (2) even if he offered an explanation, the explanation is untrue.

In addition, if any public advertisement were made stating that there will be a reward for the return of a stolen goods, and the advertisement stated that no question would be asked, the person advertising or any person printing or publishing the advertisement would be guilty of an offence under section 25 of the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210).

Similarly, it would be an offence if the advertisement stated that the person producing the goods will be safe from apprehension or inquiry. A person would also be liable if in his advertisement stated that any money used for the purchase of the stolen goods would be repaid.