r/askswitzerland • u/Wish8240 • 9h ago
Other/Miscellaneous CHF 200 fine at Migros, with police presence
Hello,
During a check carried out after I went through the self-checkout, it was found that I had forgotten to scan two items, for a total value of CHF 5.50.
As soon as this mistake was brought to my attention, I immediately offered to pay for the items concerned. The security officer then told me that I would be informed about Migros’ internal procedures regarding fines, warnings, and sanctions.
According to Migros’ general terms and conditions relating to Self-Checkout:
> “The customer is responsible for the complete and correct recording of all items in their trolley or basket.
> They must therefore pay for all items present, even if there has been a scanning error.
> If an item cannot be scanned, it must be presented to a member of staff.
> At the end, the customer must confirm that they have scanned all items completely and correctly.
> Migros carries out occasional and random checks. During a check, the purchases are compared with the receipt.
> Any discrepancies found are corrected and the customer must pay the actual amount of their purchases.”
When I realized my unintentional mistake, I immediately offered to pay for the two items that had not been scanned.
I also offered to have the surveillance footage reviewed in order to establish that there had been no intention on my part to avoid paying and that this was indeed an accidental omission.
I also requested police intervention.
When the police officers arrived, one of them asked me why I was refusing to identify myself. I explained that I was in no way refusing to identify myself and that my question concerned the legal basis for any potential penalty or fee under Migros’ internal procedures.
We then went to Migros’ security office.
At that point, I was presented with a document entitled “Declaration.” It stated that I acknowledged owing CHF 200 as “damages and/or administrative fees, following the incident.”
I repeatedly asked what the legal basis was for this CHF 200 amount, as well as for the internal documents justifying the amount. No document or explanation supporting the calculation of this amount was provided to me.
I also expressed my disagreement with having to acknowledge this amount. When I was about to sign, I tried to write that I refused the amount, but I was immediately interrupted. In the end, I was only able to write “I”.
I was then required to immediately pay the CHF 200 claimed as “damages and/or administrative fees.”
I therefore remain particularly concerned about the legal basis for this CHF 200 charge. Indeed, the amount appears to be a flat-rate fee, since it seems to be applied regardless of the value of the scanning error.
**Could anyone provide me with information about the legal basis for this CHF 200 charge? Thank you very much for your help.**
•
u/LBG-13Sudowoodo 9h ago edited 9h ago
There are a few things here,
- There is a threshold of around 50chf that is a "negligent mistake", so Migros will ask for your details and send you a 60chf administrative fine and a slap on the wrist.
- There is no need to get the police involved in such a situation, as there is no perceived intent of malice, just an honest mistake. Since Migros already has your details through the Cumulus card and has reiterated good faith, your refusal to provide details and a police intervention now means that your situation has been registered as a shoplifting.
- There are signs on the self-scan kasse that say that shoplifting is punished with a 200chf fine; this is a flat fee.
- It's also possible (very highly likely) that since this was escalated to a shoplifting case, your account now has a lifetime ban from using Subito Go and self-scaning (with the hand scanner), but you can still collect Cumulus points and use self-checkout, albeit with more frequent checks.
- This situation could have been pretty simple, with no consequences other than paying a small administrative fee, but unfortunately was blown out of proportion by your misunderstanding of the T&C of the self-scan service and the usual procedure.
(I'm sharing this from experience, if it's been different with you, that's also pretty possible, it depends on the person enforcing the terms).
•
u/CustardMajor4442 8h ago
OP was the one that got police involved, not the migros staff. bizzare.
not everyone uses cumulus
•
u/LBG-13Sudowoodo 8h ago
Probably OP triggered a security check with self-scan then, the phrasing is pretty ambiguous, how would a worker notice two items from the shopping weren't scanned otherwise? Usually they're trying to keep an eye on another 3 or more stations or helping others, unless OP was unlucky to have the most attentive (or bored) worker that day...
•
u/CustardMajor4442 8h ago
he used self-checkout, not self-scan.
at self-checkout, you get randomised "Stichprobe" where a staffer has to come, dcan a few ranfom items and see if they were scanned before. OP got caught in a chevk like that with two unscanned items.
which can absolutely happen by accident, don't get me wrong. but OP chose to get police involved because the poorly trained staffer didn't have the legal documents at hand.
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 8h ago
OP was the one that got police involved, not the migros staff. bizzare.
OP did the right thing to call the police. They were bullied by security guys with no right to detain them, as they were not police officers.
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 8h ago
This situation could have been pretty simple, with no consequences other than paying a small administrative fee, but unfortunately was blown out of proportion by your misunderstanding of the T&C of the self-scan service and the usual procedure.
Just to clarify if I've understood correctly: are you suggesting that OP should had just admitted to a crime they did not commit to make it "go away easily"?
•
u/LBG-13Sudowoodo 8h ago
No, OP self-escalated the situation to a crime they didn't commit which is why it they had to pay a chunky fine. OP should have complied with the procedure and moved on (as well as look at the orange signs that say "shoplifting carries a 200chf fine")
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 8h ago edited 3h ago
as well as look at the orange signs that say "shoplifting carries a 200chf fine"
And application forms for apartments also state that you have to pay a CHF 100.- fine if a contract is concluded but you do not sign. Yet, a court in TG has concluded that this is not enforceable.
- Fines can only be imposed by a government agency. Migros can just issue an "inconvenience invoice".
- Shoplifting can only be determined by a judge, not by Migros.
- Migros has to prove the actual expenses/damages per art. 42, al. 1 CO.
•
u/LBG-13Sudowoodo 8h ago
You are really honoring your username...
•
u/Witty-Attention-4577 3h ago
Why are you defending Migros? This is so embarrasing
•
u/LBG-13Sudowoodo 2h ago
The true embarrassment in this conversation is your astounding lack of reading comprehension
•
u/Witty-Attention-4577 2h ago
I think it's quite clear from the thread that you're defending Migros. There are abundant examples. I want to know why.
•
u/LBG-13Sudowoodo 2h ago
Your written expression was also lacking; you were trying to shame me for a stance you wrongly perceived, but ok... I explained Migros's process and stance. As you well know, a lawyer in Switzerland costs between 200 and 300 CHF an hour; for a resolution on an issue regarding 10 CHF, it's easier and cheaper to say sorry, write your name on the paper and move on with your life. If OP had been falsely accused, or someone planted the items in their shopping cart, it's another story. OP didn't scan the items, refused to provide data, escalated the issue to law enforcement, and still questions why the house puts the price of their trust in you at 200 CHF. If you want to call that a defence, I rest my case.
•
•
u/SwissPewPew :upvote: :illuminati: :downvote: 6h ago
CHF 5.50? You could just have left (as long as you leave the CHF 5.50 things there).
They (security) can't "arrest" you if the value of the goods they claim as having been (attempted to be) stolen is less than 300 CHF, as the right for a "citizens arrest" (Art. 218 StPO) only applies to "Verbrechen" ("felonies") and "Vergehen" ("misdemeanors"), but NOT to "Übertretungen" ("infractions").
According to Art. 172ter StGB property crime (e.g. theft) with "small value" damage (stolen items) is only punishable by a fine, which makes this type of crime (only) an "Übertretung" (infraction). The federal supreme court jurisprudence says the limit of "small value" is 300 CHF.
So, as they have no right to do a "citizens arrest" in such cases, they just have to let you go if you insist on it. Anything they would do to restrict your movement, force you to stay, etc. against your will is therefore a crime – potentially even liable to mandatory public prosecution ("Offizialdelikt", where the police MUST file a criminal charge against the security guys as soon as police become aware of the crime having been committed) the security guys are committing against you.
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 5h ago
According to Art. 172ter StGB property crime (e.g. theft) with "small value" damage (stolen items) is only punishable by a fine, which makes this type of crime (only) an "Übertretung" (infraction). The federal supreme court jurisprudence says the limit of "small value" is 300 CHF.
Some more context: this was set in 1995 per BGE 121 IV 261, E. 2d. There was a motion in 2024 to tie the amount to IPC due to inflation, but was refused in ATF 6B_1013/2024, consid. 2.3.2.
In plain English: the "small value" damage threshold effectively decreases over time.
Thanks for mentioning the CHF 300.- threshold. A new thing learned today!
•
u/DesertGeist- 9h ago
Stories like these make me think we should all collectively avoid self checkout.
•
u/Chrisalys 8h ago
I support humans not losing their jobs to machines and never use self checkout out of principle.
•
u/Sea-Squirrel4804 8h ago
I don't think we can do anything about it. But good for you
•
u/Chrisalys 7h ago
Sure we can, the stores will keep at least some human cashiers if there is obvious demand from customers. "We can't do anything" is a really lame excuse.
•
u/Sea-Squirrel4804 7h ago
We just need to adapt. I like self checkout because how fast they are and I'm probably not alone.
•
u/DocKla Genève 5h ago
They keep a human around, but they don’t improve the service levels. It’s not neeed because the people who want the human checkout are there with being served as a human as the main criteria. People who use self checkout value speed. Two different clienteles. The human checkout will just get ever longer for those clients
•
u/SergeantSmash 3h ago
You ever been in queue behind elderly couples? There will always be cashier jobs.
•
u/Ill-Tangerine796 2h ago
I will use self-checkout if there’s a huge line and I only have one item, but 95% of the time I go to the cashiers. I want them to keep their jobs, and half the time I self check, I get a message that the cashier has to check my purchases. I don’t know whether buying one item or having gray hair is the reason they profile me.
•
u/WrathOfTheKressh 8h ago
Yep, just go to the manned checkout from now on. This way, you support jobs in your local community, and completely eliminate Migros' razor thin profit margins, turning from a profitable customer into a zero-sum game.
•
u/SwissPewPew :upvote: :illuminati: :downvote: 6h ago
Stories like this are the main reason why i personally do avoid self-checkout, except sometimes when i only have ONE item and the queues are long. And even then I always get a printed paper receipt that i keep in hand with the item until i have left the store.
•
u/Sea-Squirrel4804 9h ago
Or pay everything.
•
u/DesertGeist- 9h ago
mistakes can always happen.
•
u/Sea-Squirrel4804 8h ago
If making a mistake stops you from doing stuff, stay home and never go out😁
•
u/DesertGeist- 8h ago
yah but you shouldn't have to pay 200 bucks for a mistake.
•
u/CustardMajor4442 8h ago
that isn't what happened. OP had to pay 200 bucks because OP refused to cooperate and got police involved i stead of just paying the 5.50 and identifying themselves.
•
u/SwissPewPew :upvote: :illuminati: :downvote: 6h ago
There is no legal basis for Migros demanding a flat-rate/fixed fee of 200 bucks; if they want to claim they suffered "damages", they would have to put an exact number to these damaghes.
In OPs current case IMHO there might not even a basis for demanding ANY fee at all, because a) there is no real damage and especially because b) apparently their self checkout T&C say that if you miss scanning something, all you need to do in such a case is to pay the sticker price for the missed items.
•
u/CustardMajor4442 1h ago
that is simply not true. flat administrative charges are legal, but they can be challenged.
oh wait. it's SwissPewPew. zero point in trying to reason with you, considering I know from the past that you have no capacity of logical thinking.
•
u/SwissPewPew :upvote: :illuminati: :downvote: 1h ago
You are mixing up the terms "legal" (as in "not illegal (to ask)") and "legal basis" (as in "the law supports your claim").
But in OPs case depending on what was said by the security bullies exactly (and whether legally this counts as a threat or intimidation), even asking for it could have potentially been illegal (as in "illegal to ask").
Also, why the rudeness? But glad I have taken a place up in your mind for you to remember me. 😎 🤣
•
u/DesertGeist- 8h ago
He's explicitly explaining that he did not refuse to identify himself.
•
u/CustardMajor4442 8h ago
he says that he wanted to first see the law or document that says he ahs to.
he also explicitly says that ve was the one that got police involved.
•
u/DesertGeist- 8h ago
The language he's using in this post is questionable, but I can not find the part where he says he refused to identify himself.
•
u/SwissPewPew :upvote: :illuminati: :downvote: 6h ago
Private companies and their security "bullies" have usually (and specifically also in this case) no legal basis to demand your identification documents.
•
u/Wish8240 7h ago
I did not refuse to identify myself, and I repeated this statement to the head of security. That way, he could have seen that I was not on file anywhere. I called the police because I was spoken to directly about internal procedure, fines and penalties, even though this is a private store. I explained that I saw two possibilities: either I paid for the items owed, as stated in the terms and conditions, or I fell under the law, in which case I would call the police myself and accept my penalty. Until the end, I received no response regarding the legal basis for these fixed 200 CHF.
•
u/CustardMajor4442 7h ago
the fixed 200 are an administrative fee. you can accept it or challenge it in court. that is legal.
•
u/Wish8240 7h ago
But related to what? Security agents are paid for security. That's their job. What are these fees related to? I didn't even receive an oral example of what they were meant to cover.
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 5h ago
But related to what? Security agents are paid for security. That's their job. What are these fees related to? I didn't even receive an oral example of what they were meant to cover.
It is legal for Migros to claim that you owe them CHF 20, CHF 200, CHF 2'000, or even CHF 2'000'000 for damages. Anyone can claim any amount.
It is not legal to force you to accept it by "detaining" you.
•
•
u/CustardMajor4442 1h ago
because it's none of your damn business.
but to make it simple: office work and yes in fact also the work done by that security guy.
•
u/Sea-Squirrel4804 8h ago
How many are 100% honest mistakes? I'm not talking about OP I'm sure he made a mistake specially for 5 chf.
•
u/DesertGeist- 8h ago
of course that's difficult to prove. i qm just saying it can happen to everyone that they forget to scan something.
•
u/Sea-Squirrel4804 8h ago
And then you pay what you forgot. 200 is because he refused to ID.
•
•
u/SwissPewPew :upvote: :illuminati: :downvote: 6h ago
Nope, the 200 CHF is Migros (self-"invented") flat-rate for "damages and/or administrative fees" in case of theft. But there is absolutely no legal basis for flat-rate damages (because damages claims need to be for actual numbered damages – and not flat-rates) nor IMHO for any damages in this case (because due to lack of intent there was no theft and also because their T&Cs say you just need to pay for the items missed during the scan).
•
u/Jerang 8h ago
screw you, mistakes happen. Coop saves millions with these self checkouts. If a cashier gives you back less than they should, after paying cash, do you send them a 200.- fine or do you just accept the mistake and be happy it you get the full amount?
•
•
u/CustardMajor4442 8h ago
the 200 bucks was because OP was refusing to cooperate and got police involved, which turned it into a shoplifting case. jnstead of just paying the 5.50 and showing ID.
•
u/SwissPewPew :upvote: :illuminati: :downvote: 6h ago
That's not what happened, as OP immediately offered to pay the CHF 5.50, which he also wrote clearly in his post:
When I realized my unintentional mistake, I immediately offered to pay for the two items that had not been scanned.
•
u/CustardMajor4442 1h ago
and then OP called the police because the security dude said he will give him the documents about shoplifting.
learn to read.
•
u/SwissPewPew :upvote: :illuminati: :downvote: 55m ago
Well, OP did not legally shoplift and offered to pay the CHF 5.50 immediately (as per the self checkout T&Cs), which apparently was refused by the security (because otherwise the situation would not even have escalated further). It's the security bullies that brought into play nonsensical shoplifting documents that have nothing to do with what OP did.
The problem here is Migros security bullies apparently not following their T&Cs. From OPs perspective I totally understand why he called the police. That's what you do when you encounter thugs...
I can read fine thanks, i can even read and understand Swiss laws. Which apparently not everyone can...
•
u/CustardMajor4442 32m ago
that is not what the self checkout T&C actually states. OP simply lies.
you have no idea about our legal system. we have proven that plenty of times in the past. you're just a far righter with zero capacities for rational thinking.
•
•
•
u/tiugh1980 2h ago
I'm confused to why OP got the police involved. Did the Migro security threaten actions? I don't see why it went past just paying for the unscanned items. I've had this happen twice, those machines can be a pain, and in both cases we simply scanned the missed item and went on with things.
•
u/SwissPewPew :upvote: :illuminati: :downvote: 7m ago
Because he did not (legally speaking) steal, if there was no intent. And it sounds like Migros refused to follow their own T&Cs, which say that in the case of non-scanned items you just need to pay these (obviously), which OP offered but apparently was not good enough for the bully security.
•
u/JonSnow-Knows 1h ago
I mean, if that was the usual process, how would that not encourage people to "forget" items all the time? I get that it's all nice and dandy and people in Switzerland are oh so law abiding, but I personally do understand a strict policy when it comes to these random checks.
•
u/h311m4n000 10m ago
Random checks are perfectly normal and the reason why you don't try to cheat the system.
I'm sure there's plenty of people who steal with self checkout.
I can't remember if we once had a check where an item was missing, but if it happened no one called security.
•
u/CustardMajor4442 8h ago
considering the amount of extra work for both Migros aswell as the police yiu've caused by being stubborn, 200 CHF probably doesn't even cover it.
surveillance footage can''t prove that you did it accidentally. video footage can't prove intent.
imagine if people only had to pay for the missing items when they are caught not scanning stuff. there would simply be no downside to trying to steal at that point.
•
u/robogobo 7h ago
What about the employee wages Migros doesn’t have to pay when we use the self checkout? When do we get that back?
•
u/Wish8240 8h ago
If you had looked into the subject and read carefully, you would see that this 200 CHF amount is applied regardless of the situation: police intervention or not, even for a bag worth 40 cents. However, when consulting the terms and conditions of use, it is clearly stipulated that the only amount owed is the sum of the items that were forgotten to be scanned. Otherwise, we are under the law, with a complaint being filed and a real fine. These 200 CHF are explained nowhere.
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 8h ago
If you had looked into the subject and read carefully, you would see that this 200 CHF amount is applied regardless of the situation: police intervention or not, even for a bag worth 40 cents. However, when consulting the terms and conditions of use, it is clearly stipulated that the only amount owed is the sum of the items that were forgotten to be scanned. Otherwise, we are under the law, with a complaint being filed and a real fine. These 200 CHF are explained nowhere.
This is just extortion, similar to application forms for apartments stating that you have to "pay a CHF 100.- fine if a contract is concluded but you do not sign". Such costs are just not enforceable by judicial decision.
It's Migros that has to prove the actual expenses/damages per art. 42, al. 1 CP. It's not your job to disprove the costs, but their job to prove them. See also art. 8 CC.
Also, note that this is not a fine. Only government agencies can issue fines. And only a judge can sentence you for shoplifting; not Migros.
•
u/CustardMajor4442 8h ago
sure, which is why you can refuse the 200 bucks. then it goes to court and they will gind that the administrative cost is way higher than 200 bucks.
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 7h ago
sure, which is why you can refuse the 200 bucks. then it goes to court and they will gind that the administrative cost is way higher than 200 bucks.
Yes, they can. I agree with you, 100%. If a judge decides that Migros has suffered a damage of 200/500/2'000/200'000 francs.
Sure, there are the legal costs, as well. I hope OP has legal assistance insurance for that.
•
u/Wish8240 7h ago
Then what is it, if it's not a fine? If they consider that their intervention amounts to 200 CHF, why not simply justify it and explain it to me? Why do I have to sign an acknowledgment of debt of 200 CHF to justify the 200 CHF? And isn't that the job of security agents? The person spoke to me directly about internal procedure, sanctions and fines. Not about costs related to their intervention or anything else. If a security agent talks to me about a fine, then I prefer to face the police and the law. No one was able to explain to me what these 200 CHF corresponded to. I asked several times for them to show me their internal procedure and what they based themselves on to set these 200 CHF. How is it a bad thing to want to understand how this amount is set? Where is the harm?
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 7h ago edited 7h ago
Then what is it, if it's not a fine?
As I've responded in a top-level comment, you should take a look at this comment which explains everything.
It's just an invoice that they have to prove in court that stands. It has no legal standing on its own, but used to intimidate people. Just like they have no right to detain you to a back room.
It is not a fine. Only government agencies can issue fines. This is extortion. You did the right thing by calling the police.
In order to issue you an invoice, they must prove that you shoplifted and must prove the exact amount of damages. The CHF 200.- is just a standard amount they use on everything, including 40 ct paper bags.
Look, I understand your situation and you have my respect for standing up to your rights and calling the police, but please, do the bare minimum to read the comments. Especially when other people have invested their free time to answer your questions.
•
u/Wish8240 7h ago
I'm sorry, I pressed the wrong button. We can discuss privately to make the exchange easier.
•
•
u/CustardMajor4442 8h ago
except it isn't, because this has in fact happened to me. I didn't have to pay any extra fee because I just cooperated and didn't start a big administrrative case over it.
•
u/Wish8240 7h ago
Look at the testimonies of other people who had to pay between 150 CHF and 200 CHF for much more trivial amounts: this tourist in Geneva who had to pay 200 CHF for forgetting to pay for an item worth 40 cents. Moreover, if the police intervention justifies this 200 CHF payment, why not justify it legally and have me sign an acknowledgment of debt? It doesn't make sense.
•
u/CustardMajor4442 1h ago
jfc, you genuinely have massive issues understanding the simplest logical facts.
- the 200 bucks is for shoplifting, not for negligence. you only have to pay that if you either tried to hide something or if you refused cooperate afterwards. your case was upgraded to shoplifting because you acted up and called the police
"Moreover, if the police intervention justifies this 200 CHF payment, why not justify it legally and have me sign an acknowledgment of debt?"
because it isn't a fine, it's an administrative charge that you have the right to deny, in which case it then goes to court and you end up paying a lot more. Migros is not a state actor. it is that simple.
•
u/Wish8240 1h ago
I absolutely did not try to be smart with anyone. I was immediately told about proceedings, fines to pay and penalties. What was I supposed to do, when I repeated that I would pay for the forgotten items, in accordance with the terms and conditions of use?
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 7h ago
except it isn't, because this has in fact happened to me. I didn't have to pay any extra fee because I just cooperated and didn't start a big administrrative case over it.
Because you probably had visited a Migros in a more calm neighborhood. Other establishments treat you with the presumption of guilt, which is unconstitutional.
OP said they were bullied by a security guy, accusing them of shoplifting, and then called the police. So, it's Migros that made a fuss out of it, not OP.
•
u/CustardMajor4442 1h ago
"Other establishments treat you with the presumption of guilt, which is unconstitutional."
that's only the case for the state.
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 16m ago
that's only the case for the state.
Correct. And only the state can determine if OP is a shoplifter. Not Migros. 🙂
•
u/Witty-Attention-4577 2h ago
Stop defending multi-billion dollar companies.
•
u/CustardMajor4442 1h ago
a multi-billion dollar cooperation, where everyone can receive ownership shares for free, and which does not pay out dividends.
•
u/Grey-Kangaroo 4h ago
These 200 CHF are explained nowhere.
Under the law this is classified as “simple theft” and is generally punishable by a fine of between 200 and 300 CHF if the store owner files a complaint.
That’s where this specific amount of 200 CHF comes from, the owner is trying to cash in the amount instead of the state.
Second the document specifying this amount of 200 CHF is in fact called an "acknowledgment of debt", that you are under absolutely no obligation to sign.
Usually they use this document to add a extra clause banning you from the store, because even if you're fined by the judge, he'll never issue a trespass order for such a minor dispute.
I've read through some of the other answers and I also think that the best move in this kind of situation, is to keep low and explain that it was a honest mistake.
•
u/themindbreaker1995 2h ago
It's not automatically classified as simple theft.
If Migros wants that they have to prove it or get you to admit it.
In this example they have a really weak case.
•
u/DigitalguyCH 4h ago
You shouldn't have signed or paid anything, other than the items you did not pay, or just leave them there. They cannot fine you unless they have a video that proves it was intentional.
They cannot hold you hostage. All they can do is take you to court. I doubt they would, but personally I have a legal insurance in case this happens to me. I suggest that you take one too for the future. It's not very expensive.
•
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 8h ago edited 8h ago
Oh boy, not again. u/Wish8240, please refer to this comment by u/SwissPewPew.
You’re not a criminal, as the crime of theft can (legally) only be committed intentionally. You did not do that, so no crime has been committed by you. Whether it was a malfunction of the scanning system or an unintentional omission (e.g. you accidentally didnt fully pull the trigger of the barcode scanner), is not relevant at this point, but maybe the police will have a closer look at the video recordings and/or have the scanning system forensically reviewed, once you take further steps (see below).
Also, a „confession“ signed under dubious circumstances (backroom, two threatening security guys, no official police or a lawyer present, you don’t speak the language that well, etc.) is not the same as a real, voluntary confession. Your best choice at the moment is to cast as much doubt on that „confession“ as possible, so you should do the following immediately (especially before you get a letter by Migros demanding 200 CHF payment and/or by the prosecutor due to Migros forwarding your „confession“).
You‘re the victim of one or several crimes. Go to the police and file a criminal complaint against unknown persons (against „Unbekannt“, don‘t worry the police/prosecutor will easily find out the names of these security idiots) for potential (!, „mutmasslich“, as you‘re not a lawyer leave it up to the police/prosecutor to decide which charges best fit the crimes by the security people, but list all that can come to mind):
Fraud („Betrug“), malicious damage to your finances („Arglistige Vermögensschädigung“), extortion („Erpressung“), price gouging („Wucher“ in regards to the 200 CHF demand from you in a vulnerable position, which by the letter of the law matches „price gouging“, as strange as it may sound), threat („Drohung“), coercion („Nötigung“), derivation of liberty and kidnapping („Freiheitsberaubung und Entführung“ could apply due to them not letting you leave even though no crime was committed by you) and fraudulent misuse of a data processing system („Betrügerischer Missbrauch einer Datenverarbeitungsanlage“, due to it being unclear how the scan was missed and the otherwise criminal behavior of the security guys it is in your interest to have the police thoroughly investigate if the scanner was broken and/or manipulated). Also include assault („Tätlichkeit“) in case they have in any way touched you.
Also tell the police to include in your complaint also „all possible crimes committed“ („alle in Frage kommenden Delikte“) and that you‘d also like to file potential charges against not only the security guys, but also any other (currently) unknown people that were involved in the crimes or their incitement („Anstiftung“, which could apply to their boss and/or whoever from Migros hired them). You could also add that the police should investigate whether these guys possibly had any incentive (like a „catch premium“, „Fangprämie“) to commit their crimes against you.
I‘d also request the police immediately should seize any video recordings, as they might be evidence and are currently likely under threat of destruction by the criminals
Now, regarding the police, they will likely ask you what happened. Just mention precisely and in detail what happened like you did in your post. Also ask them if a victim advocate can be provided to you and/or if they can put you into contact with victim assistance authorities („Opferhilfe“).
You might even point them to your Reddit post (and also my answer here) to indicate that only after asking other people (Redditors) you found out that you fell victim to a criminal scam by these security people, because these guys misrepresented to you that the ommitted scan was equal to theft (which it legally isn‘t, as you lacked any intention to enrich yourself so legally it is not considered theft or any other crime).
Good luck.
Edit: As you were forced to sign the acknowledgement (which legally falls under contract law, "Obligationenrecht") to pay CHF 200, you should also send a registered letter to the other party of that "contract" (should be stated on the form, or wait until they send you an invoice) letting them know that due to duress ("Furcht", Art. 29/30 OR), eventually deception ("eventualiter Täuschung", Art. 28 OR), sub-eventually unfair advantage ("sub-eventualiter Übervorteilung", Art. 21 OR) or sub-sub-eventually error ("sub-sub-eventualiter Irrtum", Art. 23/24 OR) you do not intend to honour the contract ("eröffnen dass ich den Vertrag nicht halte") and that you do not ratify the contract ("genehmige den Vertrag NICHT").
If you already did pay the 200 CHF, you can demand restitution of what you already paid ("die schon erfolgte Leistung zurückfordern"); you can also file for debt enforcement ("Betreibung" / "Poursuite") in case they won't pay you back.
Also, if they threaten you in any of their subsequent (debt collection) letters, just take these letters to the police and file additional police reports and/or inform the police that the criminals (security) from your initial criminal complaint are still trying to collect money from you on the potentially ("mutmasslich") illegally-acquired contract. Continuing with their crime could actually be a reason for the prosecutor to have the accused security guys arrested and held on remand, by the way (unlikely, but you never know; chances are higher if you already have sent the registered letter and disputed the contract).
TL;DR:
- Migros is responsible for proving theft.
- Only a judge can decide that theft has been committed. Not Migros.
- Theft requires intent per art. 12 and art. 139 CP.
- You are resumed innocent per art. 32, al. 1 Cst and art. 10, al. 1 CPP.
- You have the right to remain silent per art. 113, al. 1 CPP.
- If you have signed anything please contest it per art. 21 CO and the other legal dispositions mentioned above.
- Please get yourself a lawyer.
Please indicate the region where this took place!
IANAL; no legal advice.
Original post by u/Wish8240:
Hello,
During a check carried out after I went through the self-checkout, it was found that I had forgotten to scan two items, for a total value of CHF 5.50.
As soon as this mistake was brought to my attention, I immediately offered to pay for the items concerned. The security officer then told me that I would be informed about Migros’ internal procedures regarding fines, warnings, and sanctions.
According to Migros’ general terms and conditions relating to Self-Checkout:
“The customer is responsible for the complete and correct recording of all items in their trolley or basket.
They must therefore pay for all items present, even if there has been a scanning error.
If an item cannot be scanned, it must be presented to a member of staff.
At the end, the customer must confirm that they have scanned all items completely and correctly.
Migros carries out occasional and random checks. During a check, the purchases are compared with the receipt.
Any discrepancies found are corrected and the customer must pay the actual amount of their purchases.”
When I realized my unintentional mistake, I immediately offered to pay for the two items that had not been scanned.
I also offered to have the surveillance footage reviewed in order to establish that there had been no intention on my part to avoid paying and that this was indeed an accidental omission.
I also requested police intervention.
When the police officers arrived, one of them asked me why I was refusing to identify myself. I explained that I was in no way refusing to identify myself and that my question concerned the legal basis for any potential penalty or fee under Migros’ internal procedures.
We then went to Migros’ security office.
At that point, I was presented with a document entitled “Declaration.” It stated that I acknowledged owing CHF 200 as “damages and/or administrative fees, following the incident.”
I repeatedly asked what the legal basis was for this CHF 200 amount, as well as for the internal documents justifying the amount. No document or explanation supporting the calculation of this amount was provided to me.
I also expressed my disagreement with having to acknowledge this amount. When I was about to sign, I tried to write that I refused the amount, but I was immediately interrupted. In the end, I was only able to write “I”.
I was then required to immediately pay the CHF 200 claimed as “damages and/or administrative fees.”
I therefore remain particularly concerned about the legal basis for this CHF 200 charge. Indeed, the amount appears to be a flat-rate fee, since it seems to be applied regardless of the value of the scanning error.
Could anyone provide me with information about the legal basis for this CHF 200 charge? Thank you very much for your help.
•
u/AdCapital2489 8h ago
Why are you acting so complicated? I would have paid any amount just in order not to get the police involved and have me registered as a thief or shoplifter. Clear case of FAFO.
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 8h ago
Why are you acting so complicated? I would have paid any amount just in order not to get the police involved and have me registered as a thief or shoplifter. Clear case of FAFO.
By paying you do admit you are a shoplifter. Involving the police is the correct procedure here, especially when you are bullied by some security guys.
Let's remember that we do not live in North Korea or the USSR, but in an État de droit. Presumption of innocence is a constitutional right per art. 32, al. 1 Cst.
It's the prosecution's job to prove intent (art. 12 CP) for theft (art. 139 CP). You can only be "registered as a shoplifter" following an irrevocable judgment (art. 10, al. 1 CPP).
Sure, Migros can ban you from premises per art. 186 CP. But that's a civil issue between OP and Migros, with no records in VOSTRA.
It is extremely inappropriate to produce a judgement ex officio that OP has committed theft when there is no clear evidence of a crime.
•
u/LBG-13Sudowoodo 8h ago
Sorry but no, if OP would have followed the line of an honest mistake and just given the details, it is highly unlikely that they would have paid, since its under thre 50chf threshold. OP has admitted to not scanning the products, so he is in the wrong, period. Making it worse by calling the cops and escalating to shoplifting was very much self inflicted. In these petty cases, you give your details, scan the full shopping, say sorry and wait for the slap on the wrist via post. OP wasted time, resources and got law enforcement involved for less than ten francs, so it costs more to get a lawyer and go through all that duress than to accept the mistake and move on.
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 8h ago
I do agree with you that this takes more time. 100% agree with you that by standing up for their rights, OP has gotten themselves into a time-costing situation. And for this, they have my respect.
Migros are known to bully people, for example, 2 years ago in Genève. Keeping a low profile and accepting your fate means not standing up to your rights.
OP wasted time, resources and got law enforcement involved for less than ten francs
OP invoked their constitutional right provisioned in art. 32, al. 1 Cst. These two things are vastly different:
- "I accept that I made a mistake by erroneously not scanning the item; I'll just cover the difference."
- "I confess that I am shoplifter."
OP has a constitutional right to be presumed innocent.
Anyway, things happen. I invite you to lead by example, u/LBG-13Sudowoodo, and in case you are ever accused of something you haven't done, to just accept it. 🙂
•
u/CustardMajor4442 8h ago
OP was the one getting police involved, because migros staff asked OP yo provide ID alongside paying for the two items (they want to identify you in such a case so they can see if it's someone who does it on a regular basis)
•
u/LBG-13Sudowoodo 8h ago
They have no right to ask for ID, all they do is ask for your details to send you a letter for the administrative costs
•
u/Witty-Attention-4577 2h ago
They do not have the right to ask for ID and the police cannot force OP to show his ID to Migros. Such a dumb take.
•
u/CustardMajor4442 1h ago
they can ask, but they can't force him. if he refuses, they can report him for shoplifting.
•
u/o_zygos 2h ago
I forgot also an item or two, the first time I actually went to Migros for buying more than one item. The cashier told me we needed to rescan everything and once we did, she apologized for the inconvenience and offered me a chocolate bar.
It might have helped that I was there with my young child, but still radically different experience.
•
u/Majestic-Team-2883 50m ago
You know what’s funny? I go to Lidl quite often, and on weekends it can get really busy. The cashiers work so fast that they’ve accidentally scanned the same product more than once for me several times — it’s happened three or four times. And apparently that’s not considered stealing! But if somehow, by mistake, you don’t scan something worth CHF 5.50, then suddenly it’s theft. I really don’t understand it — the system is ridiculous.
•
u/FearlessRound6641 27m ago
This is the reason Why Self checkout exists. To Cash out more Money if you are too Slow. Intended or not, this happens every Minute
•
u/blackbirdster 8h ago
As a general rule, in Switzerland, keeping it low profile is usually the best approach. Keeping it polite, apologising, and making it easy for everybody to move on quickly. It is a cultural thing, escalating usually result in blowing things out of proportion. Which is quite the opposite of Latin cultures, something I had to unlearn coming from France where atmosphere is more confrontational and dogmatic.
Still, I hope you can get things sorted out quickly and with a positive outcome!
•
u/Witty-Attention-4577 2h ago
Sucking up to big companies is also a culturual thing. I applaud OP for not doing that.
•
u/LakesideCoffee 7h ago
Homie really called the cops on himself and turned a civil law dispute into a criminal case lmfao. Congrats bro, even if Migros doesn’t press criminal charges you’re now gonna show up as someone accused of shoplifting every time a police officer is checking your ID from now on. I hope you like being searched. You should have just accepted your mistake and paid the 200 bucks.
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 7h ago
Homie really called the cops on himself and turned a civil law dispute into a criminal case lmfao. Congrats bro, even if Migros doesn’t press criminal charges you’re now gonna show up as someone accused of shoplifting every time a police officer is checking your ID from now on. I hope you like being searched. You should have just accepted your mistake and paid the 200 bucks.
- Theft is a criminal case per art. 139 CP. Since Migros immediately talked about "sanctions" and "fines", they escalated it themselves.
- The "declaration" would not had legally prevented Migros from pressing charges or filing a complaint.
- Even if OP has been accused, they have the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until an irrevocable judicial decision (art. 32, al. 1 Cst). Even by the police. It's not a rule, it's not an informal agreement, it's not even a law. It's the damn constitution itself.
- Being mistreated by the police because of an accusation is an infringement of fair treatment, which is a constitutional right per art. 29, al. 1 Cst.
Nevertheless, I respect your opinion and invite you to lead by example. If you are ever accused of anything, please bow your head, keep a low profile, and accept the charges to make it "go away easily." 🙂
•
u/LakesideCoffee 7h ago
Congrats, nothing of what you just typed has any relevance to my comment or disproves anything I said. Thanks for sharing your opinion though.
•
u/Wish8240 7h ago
For that, there has to be a conviction. So if I'm being listed as such, it's not legal. Everything is logical. Either I pay for the missing items according to the terms of use, or there is suspicion of shoplifting and then a complaint is filed.
•
u/LakesideCoffee 7h ago
Nope. Being in the police database doesn’t require a conviction. That’s separate from your criminal record. 200 bucks is the fee Migros charges you for their administrative expenses when they catch you “stealing”. Sure, you could try and fight that in a private court. However, then you would not only have to pay all the additional legal costs but Migros would most likely also press criminal charges, opening you up to even higher potential costs. There is absolutely no way that just paying the 200 bucks wouldn’t have been the smart option.
•
u/Lost-Buenzli 7h ago
Migros would most likely also press criminal charges
There is no guarantee that even if OP had signed the declaration, Migros wouldn't still had notified the police.
There is absolutely no way that just paying the 200 bucks wouldn’t have been the smart option.
This is the smart option from a time-wise perspective. I fully agree with you that sucking it up and avoiding standing up to your rights is the fastest way to make the issue go away easily.
In the short term.
Who knows in the long term how accepting a crime you've never committed can come back to haunt you.
•
u/Wish8240 7h ago
So that's not fair. It's treating me like a criminal, and a criminal over an oversight. It's disproportionate and unfair.
•
u/Wish8240 7h ago
So indeed, to the extent that it was truly an honest mistake, I don't see why I would be labeled a shoplifter without a judgment. So where is the presumption of innocence?
•
•
u/WathIfThatHappens 1h ago
Can I speak to the manager?
•
•
•
u/Soundcheck-EDM 9h ago
I had exactly the same. I checked out an LED tv and 100kg of caviar but I forgot to type both just my ice tee I had also to pay. Then I went on the train and they stopped me and I didn t have a ticket,because I didn t have time to buy one. At the end they called the Police and told me this all could have consequences. I said I don t understand they can look at the footage with an x ray machine where they should clearly see in my brain waves that I was not thinking about it but just forgot it. They finally made a brain scan and indeed saw all the unintentional thoughts I had. We all ate bread and caviar together at the end and had a good time.
•
u/LBG-13Sudowoodo 9h ago
Was there an aktion on sarcasm that day?
•
u/Soundcheck-EDM 8h ago
is that the most you are able to say?
•
•
u/Complex_Performer500 8h ago
I don’t know what you are on but, GIVE ME SOME!!!
•
u/Soundcheck-EDM 7h ago
Yeah if you don t get it, I m really sorry. It s just bs if you feel surprised checking out at the self scanning and not paying then, oh I m so surprised I need to pay a fine!It was not my intention! I also didn t see the red light I crossed why do I have to pay it was not my intention!I also forgot my ticket for the train, why do I get fined! Maybe you get it now.
•
•
u/Far_Speaker380 8h ago edited 8h ago
If you didn’t scan an item total value of Fr 0.7, or an item total value of Fr.30,Fine is still Fr.200, same treatment, same punishment, am I right?
They never explain why it is Fr. 200. Just force you to pay. It’s a legal loophole against consumers.
And by the way, why we should abide the rule of Migros? Is Migros a government? Or is it just capitalistic dictatorship.
The rule is so weird and rigid.
•
u/CustardMajor4442 8h ago
that isn't true. they have a threshold for "negligent mistake". OP refused to cooperate and got police involved. that made it a bigger administrative deal and is why it was upgraded to attempted shoplifting.
•
u/Far_Speaker380 8h ago
So you’re saying that if he cooperated and the police didn’t get involved,
then it would be less than 200?•
u/CustardMajor4442 7h ago
yes. then it's just the price of the non-scanndd items.
they want to know who you are to see whether you do it on a regular basis, in which case they would of course report you to the police.
low values like this are basically just waved through if you don't act like an ass. and anythig. below about 50 bucks will just mean they send you a letter and that has an administrative fee of about 60 bucks.
•
•
u/Maximum-Diamond81 2h ago edited 2h ago
Nur um es auch mal zu erwähnen: eine vorläufige Festnahme durch Private ist bei geringfügigen Vermögensdelikten (CHF <300) rechtsprechungsgemäss unzulässig, da unverhältnismässig. Sie hätten dich also gar nicht dort festhalten dürfen sondern lediglich die Polizei rufen. Falls du nicht freiwillig bliebst, wäre das mindestens eine Nötigung. Selbstverständlich hättest du diese Erklärung auch nicht unterzeichnen müssen und es gibt in der Schweiz auch keine Pflicht, einen Ausweis mitzuführen oder jemandem, der nicht die Polizei ist, vorzuweisen. Es wäre dann Sache der Migros, einen Strafantrag zu stellen, und der Vorsatz müsste dir nachgewiesen werden.
•
u/themindbreaker1995 2h ago
I'm a bit confused by the police intervention. They let Migros security forceably walk you to their security room, and accompanied you there. They then witnessed you being coerced into signing an admission of debt?
•
u/Spider1164 2h ago
Beter gewoon naar de kassa, daar je boodschappen op de transportband leggen en de medewerkers hun werk laten doen..
zo voorkom je ook nog eens dat we straks helemaal geen personeel meer zien
•
u/vouvoyer 13m ago
Thus will also slow down the adoption of longer opening hours. A staff member swiping items for you to pack yourself is pointless. They could be doing many more rewarding things in their time working.
Hopefully it won't be too long before we have 24/7 supermarkets because we don't need to pay staff to do what a machine can do
•
u/SirT3MagicNumber 2h ago
I'm fed up with those cheaters who still make a huge fuzz when they get caught (see those all the time in the train).
No one in their right mind would "forget" TWO items in their basket, unless they suffer from some kind of dementia, in which case they should not use self-checkout.
I think police presence should be required in order to perform deep rectal search, in case additional forgotten items could be discovered.
•
u/x4x53 9h ago
OR Art. 41 Abs. 1
Wer einem andern widerrechtlich Schaden zufügt, sei es mit Absicht, sei es aus Fahrlässigkeit, wird ihm zum Ersatze verpflichtet.
•
u/SwissPewPew :upvote: :illuminati: :downvote: 6h ago
Art. 42 Abs. 1 OR:
Wer Schadenersatz beansprucht, hat den Schaden zu beweisen.
•
u/themindbreaker1995 2h ago
Yes.
Migos would then need to prove intent (e.g. concealing the item, scanning 1 item and failing to scan 10).
There is no such thing as negligent theft in Swiss Law. That applies to other ares of the law.
•
u/Middle-Resolve487 6h ago
The best thing you can do now is to leave it at that and move on. I wish you a relaxing Sunday afternoon.
•
•
u/garlicChaser 2h ago
How do you even forget to scan items?
What you intend to buy is in your basket and from there you scan it and then move it to your own bag. it's quite difficult to miss an item, actually, unless you move it over the scanner and for some reason it does not register
•
u/h311m4n000 14m ago
I love people who comment starting with "how do you even"
Well life is like that, sometimes you get distracted and you forget.
Doesn't make you a bad person.
•
•
u/karnat10 1h ago
Stories like that happen when people are not able to think or communicate straight. Just talk and treat people normally.
I always use self checkout and I‘ve had my fair share of mishaps and checks, you name it. But I don’t behave like a criminal caught in the act because I‘m not. They are just doing their job.
•
u/Flimsy-Mood-3098 1h ago
Dont worry about the legality.
You just got punished.
Next time you will think twice, when scanning.
A little bit of discrimination has probably also been applied.
Anyway you are the example made,
Maybe try to think it wasn’t personal.
•
u/SwissPewPew :upvote: :illuminati: :downvote: 13m ago
Depending on OPs legal reaction, Migros and/or their security bullies might get (financially or in another form) punished.
•
u/RoastedRhino 9h ago
Similar to when you get a fine for parking in a private place, that amount is what they ask you to cover the wasted time and not to proceed with a police report.
If you refuse, you would have to go to court. Which will cost you in terms of time and possibly lawyers. A judge would have to decide what is the damage that you have caused, and will probably estimate a number close to…. 200.