IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NUKU'ALOFA REGISTRY	      
CR 191 of 2024

REX
-V-
QIWU HUANG

JUDGEMENT

BEFORE:	HON. LORD CHIEF JUSTICE BISHOP KC 

Appearances:	Mrs S ‘Eliesa for the Crown Prosecution
	Ms H Aleamotu’a for the Defendant                                
Trial:                             10 – 11 March 2025
Judgement:	11 March 2025 

A.	THE CHARGES 
1.	On 3 December 2024, the Defendant was arraigned where he pleaded not guilty to the following charge:
a.	Count 2: Receiving Stolen Property contrary to section 148(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, where on or abouts the months of February to April 2024, you did receive electronic devices, valued at the total of $18,940 believing it to have been stolen.
2.	The Defendant was charged with his co-accused, Mr Ngaluafe in which he pleaded Guilty to Count 1 of theft. 
3.	Trial was set to commence 10 March 2025 for an estimate of 2 days.
B.	DISCUSSION
4.	It is not disputed that there was a theft here and that the person responsible has already pleaded guilty to stealing these items, or some of them together with a large number of other items. 
5.	The question for me is whether this defendant, when he received the goods in question, believed that they were stolen. Now there are a number of difficulties in this case, which I must address first, it has been now impossible to reconcile the various lists of items said to have been stolen. Some are said to have been, in fact, the possession of Superphone, others were of third parties. 
6.	It means, therefore, that I must be particularly careful when I take into account the items which have been alleged as having in fact been the result of a transaction between the first defendant this defendant. 
7.	The second issue I must address is the language difficulty which has emerged in the case, the defendant is of Chinese descent. He speaks mandarin and has some knowledge of Tongan, but it was plain during the beginning of his evidence that the interpreter, which was assigned to him was unsatisfactory.
8.	A new interpreter had to be obtained who dealt with a matter, if I may say so, manfully and as a result, I am now satisfied that I have a clear picture of the defendant's case and what he wishes to say.
9.	Should there be any difficulty in relation to the translation, I resolve that in favour of the Defendant. 
10.	He is a sixty-year-old man who runs a general store business from which he also sells mobile telephones and other devices. He has been in business for about business 16 years and came to live and work in Tonga as a businessman in 2009. 
11.	So, he has significant experience in the world of finance and in the world retail operations, and he in my view must have known that mobile phones are highly prized commodities in that they are small in volume but of high worth. 
12.	He is also I take it and accept, well aware of the danger of stolen goods being passed off as genuine. I say that I am satisfied that he was aware of that because he told me that one of his first remarks when the first defendant offered him the phones was that he was not interested in buying stolen goods and it was because the seller told him that the phones were not stolen and that he had brought them from his professional repair shop in New Zealand, that he bought it.
13.	This suggests to me that this was not someone who was naively accepting the word of a stranger but was initially suspicious and wanted reassurance of he says about the source of the items. 
14.	The other feature of this case, which in I view is significant, is that there were 3 visits to the defendant's premises. On the first visit, the first defendant, of course, being a complete stranger to this defendant was able to sell him, an iPhone 13 pro in good condition, as well other iPhones, for which he paid $8,000.
15.	He came back, apparently the following day, and further iPhones was sold.
16.	On the third day, 6 Samsungs were purchased as well as a tablet. All this was done without any paperwork to authenticate the source of the phones. And yet the defendant parted with $13,000 without any such corroboration. 
17.	Another feature of the case, which, again, is significant, is that no receipts were tended by the defendant to the seller. Now, he must have records as a businessman, if only for the purposes of dealing with the tax authorities. And yet he was unable to produce anything to show that he had nothing to hide about this transaction, that it was all above board and that parting with $13,000 to a complete stranger without any receipt or other indication that the goods were legitimately sourced, strikes me as incomprehensible. 
18.	I accept that this is a criminal trial and I must be satisfied to the criminal standard that means I must be sure or putting it another way beyond reasonable doubt that the allegations which have been made have been established. 
19.	I am satisfied so far as the items to which the defendant himself admits receiving that he received those items believing that they were in fact, stolen, and accordingly, I find him guilty of count 2 of the indictment. 
C.	FINAL RESULT
20.	For Count 2 of the Indictment in Receiving Stolen Property namely electronic devices with the total value of $13,000 contrary to section 148(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, I find you guilty
HON. MALCOLM BISHOP KC
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE 
NUKU’ALOFA 
11 March 2025