Term and definition of ‘Zechprellerei’
‘Zechprellerei’ refers to the intentional act of leaving a gastronomic establishment, such as a restaurant, tavern, or hotel, to evade the payment for previously received and consumed services (particularly food and beverages). In a broader sense, it also includes situations where additional services or goods are utilized without the intention to pay for them. The term ‘Zechprellerei’ originates from the German language and is significant primarily in court decisions and the terminology used by law enforcement authorities.
Historical background
‘Zechprellerei’ has existed for centuries as a social and economic issue. Such offenses were prosecuted under criminal law as early as the 19th century. The increasing importance of gastronomy and hotels led to more intensive legislative and judicial consideration of the topic.
Legal assessment of ‘Zechprellerei’
Criminal law evaluation
No separate criminal offense
Under German criminal law, there is no specific offense explicitly named ‘Zechprellerei’. Instead, ‘Zechprellerei’ constitutes a bundle of acts that may fulfill various existing criminal provisions. Criminal liability is assessed according to the specific act and its circumstances in each individual case.
Fraudulently obtaining services (§ 265a StGB)
The so-called ‘fraudulently obtaining services’, regulated under § 265a of the German Criminal Code (StGB), penalizes the unauthorized procurement of services, especially regarding public transportation or services offered by machines. The applicability of this section is disputed when it comes to the consumption of food and beverages. According to prevailing case law, the classic case of ‘Zechprellerei’ does not fall under this provision, as the service in a restaurant is typically provided through table service and not obtained by fraud within the meaning of the statute. The determining factor is the absence of deceptive conduct.
Fraud (§ 263 StGB)
In practice, criminal liability for ‘Zechprellerei’ often arises under the offense of fraud according to § 263 StGB. Fraud occurs when the perpetrator, by presenting false facts or distorting or suppressing true facts, induces or maintains a mistake in order to secure for themselves or a third party an unlawful pecuniary advantage and thereby damages another’s assets.
In connection with ‘Zechprellerei’, the obligation to pay—that is, the perpetrator’s intention to pay—must have been absent at the time of ordering. A perpetrator acts deceptively if they intended from the outset not to pay and did not disclose this to the innkeeper or staff. If the deception about willingness to pay led to the provision of the service, the objective elements of fraud are met. The so-called ‘fare-dodger in a restaurant’ can therefore be criminally liable as a fraudster.
If payment is refused after consumption and only after being asked to pay, the intent to deceive is usually absent, provided the intention to pay existed initially and only later was there an inability or unwillingness to pay. In these cases, typically no fraud exists, but possibly only a civil law claim.
Embezzlement and theft
Other criminal offenses such as embezzlement (§ 246 StGB) or theft (§ 242 StGB) generally play no role, as the food and drinks provided are handed over as intended and only upon non-payment is the innkeeper’s financial situation affected. However, if inventory is taken away, these offenses may be fulfilled.
Trespassing (§ 123 StGB)
If a premises is restricted after refusal to pay or a ban is in place, remaining on the premises and reordering can constitute the offense of trespassing.
Fraudulent obtaining of services in the hotel industry (by analogy to § 265a StGB)
In cases where guests stay overnight in hotels with no intention of paying from the outset, criminal liability similar to that for fraudulently obtaining services may arise, especially if no identification is given or false information is provided. Increasing efforts are made to ensure comprehensive criminal liability, especially in serious cases of fraudulent overnight stays.
Civil law assessment
Contractual basis
The legal relationship between guest and innkeeper is usually based on a catering contract, or in the case of hotels, a lodging contract. The contract is concluded with the order of food or drinks, or at the latest upon acceptance by the innkeeper. The agreed consideration is the payment of the listed price.
Damages and default
If payment is refused or omitted, the restaurateur has a civil claim for payment of the agreed or customary fee (§§ 611, 612 BGB). Default interest and any other damages incurred may be claimed (§§ 286 ff. BGB).
Right of retention
The innkeeper has a so-called right of retention, for example in respect to the guest’s luggage (§ 647 BGB by analogy in the lodging industry, lien). A ban from the premises may also be imposed, provided it is properly justified.
Practical examples of ‘Zechprellerei’
“No-show guest”
A typical case: A guest regularly orders food and drinks, consumes them, and then leaves the premises without paying.
Deception about ability to pay
A guest pretends to be solvent, is served, and leaves the establishment intending not to pay.
Feigned willingness to pay
A guest denies placing an order or claims the quality is poor in order to evade payment.
Legal consequences and sanctions
Criminal law consequences
‘Zechprellerei’ can be punished with a fine or imprisonment if the requirements of fraud or another criminal offense are met. The severity of the penalty depends on the seriousness and the amount of damage (§ 263 StGB).
Civil law consequences
The innkeeper can sue for the outstanding amount and, if necessary, initiate debt collection proceedings. Additional costs may arise and, if there is an enforceable claim, enforcement measures may be taken.
Distinguishing features from similar offenses
The differentiation between ‘Zechprellerei’ and other offenses such as theft, embezzlement, or fraudulently obtaining services is based on how the service was obtained and the subjective elements of the offense, especially the intent to pay and the intention to deceive at the time the service is accepted.
‘Zechprellerei’ in other legal systems
In other legal systems, particularly in Europe, different regulations apply. In Austria and Switzerland, similar offenses are also punishable under general fraud provisions. There is usually no independent regulation concerning ‘Zechprellerei’.
Sources and further literature
- Criminal Code (StGB)
- Civil Code (BGB)
- Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, decision of 26.06.1980 – 5 Ss 430/80
- Palandt, BGB Commentary
The comprehensive legal analysis of ‘Zechprellerei’ clearly shows that this term encompasses different legal aspects in practice. Both criminal and civil law consequences may arise in individual cases, with the exact classification always depending on the specific circumstances.
Frequently asked questions
When does ‘Zechprellerei’ constitute punishable behavior?
Punishable conduct under the term ‘Zechprellerei’ occurs when the perpetrator makes use of a hospitality service, such as food, drinks, or overnight accommodation, with the intent not to pay for it. Central here is so-called initial fraud (§ 263 StGB), meaning that at the moment of ordering the service, there must already be deception about one’s willingness or ability to pay. For example, if a restaurant is entered, food consumed, and the guest leaves without paying, the key is whether there was an intention from the outset not to pay for the services. Subsequent inability to pay or a financial shortfall does not constitute a punishable act of fraud. In practice, concrete circumstances indicating intentional deception about payment intention must be present, such as giving false identity information or deliberately leaving the premises without requesting the bill.
What penalties can be imposed for ‘Zechprellerei’?
‘Zechprellerei’ is prosecuted as fraud under § 263 StGB. Upon conviction, the offender generally faces imprisonment of up to five years or a monetary fine. Particularly serious cases or repeat offenders may receive higher penalties. In addition to criminal sanctions, the injured party may assert civil claims for payment for the services rendered and for damages. Frequently, other consequences such as registration in the Federal Central Register are also imposed during criminal proceedings, which can negatively affect the perpetrator’s social prognosis.
What evidence is decisive in criminal proceedings for ‘Zechprellerei’?
Securing evidence plays a central role in criminal proceedings. Typical pieces of evidence include witness testimony from the innkeeper or other persons present, surveillance videos, order slips, receipts, or other records of the events. Particularly important is proof of intent—that is, that the accused already knew and intended not to pay when entering the establishment or placing the order. Merely ‘forgetting to pay’ or unexpected inability to pay is not sufficient. Other indications, such as providing false address information or hurriedly leaving the premises, also factor into the legal assessment.
Are there differences between adults and juveniles in criminal proceedings regarding ‘Zechprellerei’?
Yes, for juveniles and young adults (up to 21 years of age), the Youth Courts Act (JGG) usually applies, which primarily emphasizes educational measures. Sanctions such as educational instructions, warnings, or orders to perform work take precedence, and imprisonment is imposed only in exceptional cases. For adults, the general criminal law provisions of the German Criminal Code (StGB) apply, whereby especially first-time offenders can often expect lesser sentences and suspended sentences.
What is the role of attempt in ‘Zechprellerei’?
An attempt at ‘Zechprellerei’ is also punishable. This means that, for example, if a person tries to flee but is apprehended before leaving the establishment or is stopped early, an attempt at fraud can already be present and prosecuted under § 263 para. 2 StGB. Again, it is decisive whether the intent to deceive and not pay can be proven. The attempt is usually punished less severely than the completed offense but is still legally significant.
Can ‘Zechprellerei’ also occur in hotels or taxis?
Yes, the offense of ‘Zechprellerei’ is not limited to classic restaurants. It can also arise in the hotel industry (e.g., overnight stays, use of minibar or in-house services) or when using taxi services, provided the service provider is induced to perform through deceptive conduct regarding payment ability or intention. The legislator and courts thus include all situations in which a service is fraudulently obtained by falsely pretending willingness to pay under the same legal principles.
What civil claims exist besides criminal proceedings?
Regardless of the outcome of any criminal proceedings, the injured party has civil claims for payment. According to §§ 823, 812 of the Civil Code (BGB), the restaurateur or entrepreneur can claim settlement of outstanding invoices as well as compensation for further damages (e.g., investigative costs). These claims exist independently of whether a criminal conviction has been handed down. The criminal proceedings regulate only the state’s sanctioning of the conduct, while the civil proceedings protect the injured party’s financial interests.
