25 Putting aside the details of the theft which were not disputed by the Defence, the Prosecution relied on the following critical parts of Lee’s evidence to show that the Accused had received the handphones with reason to believe that they were stolen property:
(a) Lee had been to the Accused’s shop at Golden Mile Towers on two previous occasions only to service his handphone and to buy a memory card;
(b) the Accused was aware that Lee was working at the airport cargo complex as he was informed him of this and Lee had not represented to him that he was importer and exporter of handphones;
(c) he had stolen the 10 cartons containing the handphones on 30 April 2006 and he had contacted the Accused on 1 May 2006 before he retrieved the stolen phones from the location he had hidden them;
(d) when he related to the Accused that he had about 10 cartons of handphones and whether he was interested in them, the Accused had asked him to come down to his shop with the stolen property;
(e) Lee delivered the 10 cartons of handphones to the Accused’s shop on 1 May 2006 and there, they had opened one carton to examine the contents;
(f) In the course of their discussion, the Accused told him that he did not want to know the origins of the goods and that he did not want to get involved should Lee get in trouble;
(g) Thereafter, the Accused offered to pay $10,000 for the 10 cartons, which offer was accepted by Lee.
(h) The Accused paid Lee $8700 on 1 May 2006 and the remaining amount was to be paid on a later date; and
(i) Lee never collected the balance as he was arrested on 18 May 2006.
25 Putting aside the details of the theft which were not disputed by the Defence, the Prosecution relied on the following critical parts of Lee’s evidence to show that the Accused had received the handphones with reason to believe that they were stolen property:(a) Lee had been to the Accused’s shop at Golden Mile Towers on two previous occasions only to service his handphone and to buy a memory card;(b) the Accused was aware that Lee was working at the airport cargo complex as he was informed him of this and Lee had not represented to him that he was importer and exporter of handphones;(c) he had stolen the 10 cartons containing the handphones on 30 April 2006 and he had contacted the Accused on 1 May 2006 before he retrieved the stolen phones from the location he had hidden them;(d) when he related to the Accused that he had about 10 cartons of handphones and whether he was interested in them, the Accused had asked him to come down to his shop with the stolen property;(e) Lee delivered the 10 cartons of handphones to the Accused’s shop on 1 May 2006 and there, they had opened one carton to examine the contents;(f) In the course of their discussion, the Accused told him that he did not want to know the origins of the goods and that he did not want to get involved should Lee get in trouble;(g) Thereafter, the Accused offered to pay $10,000 for the 10 cartons, which offer was accepted by Lee.(h) The Accused paid Lee $8700 on 1 May 2006 and the remaining amount was to be paid on a later date; and(i) Lee never collected the balance as he was arrested on 18 May 2006.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
![](//thimg.ilovetranslation.com/pic/loading_3.gif?v=b9814dd30c1d7c59_8619)