Term and Definition of ‘Mundraub’
The term Mundraub refers to the theft or taking of small quantities of food or luxury items for immediate consumption. Both historically and legally, this has primarily meant the stealing of food, with motive and the trivial nature of the act being key characteristics of the offense. In today’s German legal system, the term is no longer expressly regulated, but it still holds significant practical and legal-historical relevance.
Historical Development and Legal Background
Mundraub in the Penal Code (StGB) of the German Empire
In 1871, with the introduction of the Imperial Criminal Code, Mundraub was codified as a separate criminal offense in § 370 StGB. At that time, it read:“The removal of a small quantity of field, garden, vineyard or tree fruit, forest fruits or wild-growing plants, or small quantities of agricultural or horticultural products…” was subject to lesser penalties than ordinary theft. The legislator intended to take into account the trivial nature of such offenses.
Abolition in 1975
As part of the criminal law reform, the offense of Mundraub was completely abolished on January 1, 1975 with the First Law to Reform Criminal Law (§370 StGB old version). Since then, the removal of food or agricultural products is covered by the general theft provisions (§ 242 StGB), although today there is the possibility of discontinuing proceedings due to insignificance (§ 153 StPO) or minor guilt (§ 248a StGB).
Mundraub under Current Criminal Law
Application of § 242 StGB (Theft)
Under current law, any theft — that is, the intentional taking of another’s movable property — is punishable. It does not matter whether the stolen item is an everyday object, valuable electronics, or food. Thus, classic Mundraub, such as picking fruit on someone else’s property or removing groceries from supermarkets, also falls under the scope of § 242 StGB.
Low Value of the Item (§ 248a StGB)
If theft concerns an item of low value, prosecution under § 248a StGB generally only occurs at the request of the injured party or ex officio if there is a special public interest. Items worth up to around 50 euros are considered low value. This rule is intended to relieve the criminal justice system in cases of minor offenses and often applies to classic Mundraub situations.
Discontinuation of Proceedings in Petty Cases (§ 153 StPO)
In petty cases, such as thefts of negligible amounts of food worth only a few euros, the public prosecutor often discontinues proceedings in accordance with § 153 StPO (insignificance) if there is no particular public interest in prosecution and there are no relevant prior convictions.
Legal Classification of (Picking) Actions on Public Land
Dumpster Diving and Urban Gardening
So-called ‘dumpster diving,’ i.e., taking food from private supermarket trash bins, formally constitutes theft since discarded goods generally remain the property of store managers. In practice, however, such proceedings often end in dismissal.
Harvesting fruit from public trees (‘urban gardening’), for example on roadside or park trees, must be assessed differently from a legal perspective. If the produce belongs to the municipality or the state (the public sector), civil law considers it an unlawful act and an administrative offense, and from a criminal perspective, it can be theft. Many cities, however, have special regulations for this or tolerate harvesting in small quantities.
Food Banks and Food Sharing
Food bank initiatives or food sharing organizations, which distribute surplus food for donations or free of charge, also operate within a legal framework based on civil law transfers of ownership and usually have the consent of the original owners (e.g., supermarkets).
Civil Law Aspects
Civilly, the theft of food does not remain without consequence. Beyond criminal law, the owner has claims for surrender, injunction, and, if applicable, damages (§§ 823 ff. BGB). In minor Mundraub cases, however, civil proceedings are rarely initiated in practice.
Current Discussion and Societal Assessment
Mundraub remains the subject of social and political debate, especially in connection with poverty, food waste, and the sustainable handling of edible goods. Current legal provisions are seen by some as too harsh, by others as sufficient. Initiatives are advocating for a change in the handling of food and for the decriminalization of dumpster diving.
Summary
In summary, ‘Mundraub’ is no longer a separate criminal offense today but is legally treated as theft. For items of low-value food or luxury goods, there are provisions such as § 248a StGB and the option to discontinue proceedings (§ 153 StPO). Civil law claims still exist. The social evaluation of these offenses is changing, including in the context of discussions about food waste and social justice.
See also
- Theft under § 242 StGB
- Low value items under § 248a StGB
- Discontinuation of proceedings due to insignificance under § 153 StPO
- <a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeschichtedesStrafrechtsinDeutschland”>History of Criminal Law in Germany
- Dumpster Diving and Food Rescue
Note: The information provided here does not replace individual legal advice and is intended for general informational purposes in a legal lexicon.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Mundraub still a separate criminal offense under current German law?
Mundraub was originally a separate criminal offense under German law (§ 370 StGB old version), but was removed from the Penal Code in 1975 as part of the criminal law reform. Since then, Mundraub no longer exists as an independent offense. Acts that were previously considered Mundraub are now prosecuted as theft (§ 242 StGB), regardless of the quantity or value of the stolen food. The special circumstance that the stolen item was intended solely for immediate consumption, as in traditional Mundraub, is no longer expressly taken into account in sentencing. However, the low value and social motive can be taken into consideration in sentencing or possible discontinuation of proceedings (§ 153 StPO, insignificance). Nevertheless, it must be noted that harvesting or taking someone else’s fruit, vegetables, or other edible items without the owner’s consent basically fulfills the offense of theft, even if it involves only tiny amounts.
How does Mundraub legally differ from ordinary theft?
In the past, Mundraub was considered a privileged form of theft, as it was strictly limited to food for immediate consumption. With the repeal of § 370 StGB old version, this privilege was abolished. Today, there is no legal distinction between taking food for immediate consumption and theft of other items. Legally, any case in which someone takes another person’s food without consent is considered simple theft. Factors such as motive (e.g., hunger or need) may have a mitigating effect on sentencing but do not affect the illegality or fulfill the elements of the offense.
What legal consequences can one face for so-called Mundraub today?
If, for example, someone picks fruit from another person’s tree or takes vegetables from a farmer’s field for personal consumption, they generally make themselves liable for theft under § 242 StGB. The range of penalties extends from fines to imprisonment for up to five years. In practice, minor cases — such as eating a few cherries — often lead to discontinuation of proceedings for insignificance under § 153 StPO, especially if there is no public interest in prosecution. This is at the discretion of the public prosecutor, so investigations and possibly penalty orders may still occur in individual cases. In addition, civil claims for damages can be asserted.
Is it permitted to pick fruit from ownerless or wild-growing trees?
Harvesting fruit or plants is only legal if there is either no owner or person entitled, or there is express permission. The legal concept of an ‘ownerless item’ is strictly defined: trees or shrubs in parks, at roadsides, in fields, or forests are generally owned by municipalities or private owners and are not ownerless. Even fallen fruit remains the property of the tree owner. Only in very rare cases, for example, where ownership has clearly been abandoned or on public picking areas (often marked as such), is collecting legally permitted. Otherwise, from a legal perspective, it is considered theft.
What role does the value of the stolen item play in evaluating Mundraub under criminal law?
In criminal proceedings, the value of the stolen item is considered primarily in sentencing and with respect to discontinuation of proceedings. Under § 248a StGB (‘Theft and embezzlement of items of low value’), the theft of items of low value (guideline: about 50 euros) can only be prosecuted upon authorization by the injured party, unless it is a particularly serious case. In these cases, public interest in prosecution is especially reviewed; discontinuation under §§ 153 or 153a StPO is common. Nevertheless, theft remains formally punishable; especially repeat offenders or particularly brazen acts can be prosecuted even if the value is low.
Can an offender plead necessity if they steal food?
German criminal law recognizes the so-called justifying state of necessity (§ 34 StGB). This might apply under very strict conditions, such as when there is a specific danger to life or limb and no other reasonable remedy is available. However, case law sets a very high threshold for such necessity. Mere hunger or poverty is usually not sufficient to excuse food theft. It would be necessary for the offender to be in a life-threatening situation with imminent danger; such cases are rare in practice. Social welfare and aid systems such as food banks or emergency shelters are considered reasonable alternatives. Accordingly, most offenders cannot successfully plead necessity.
Are there special considerations for children or adolescents in connection with Mundraub?
Criminal acts related to Mundraub committed by children (under 14) are not punishable under German law due to lack of criminal capacity and thus have no criminal consequences. Adolescents (14–17 years) and young adults (18–20 years) are subject to special provisions of juvenile criminal law (JGG), which focuses primarily on education rather than punishment. The courts here pay particular attention to motives, social surroundings, and educational needs. Especially in cases of minor offenses such as Mundraub, proceedings for first-time offenders and understandable motives often end in discontinuation or mild measures (such as social training courses or community work). Nonetheless, the basic illegality of the act remains.
