Between November 2022 and the beginning of 2023, a woman (52) and her 31-year-old son made several visits to a jeans store in the Stern Center in Lüdenscheid. The son left the store after three visits with clothes worth a total of 1115.40 euros, his mother after four visits with goods worth 929.14 euros. The two paid with a bank card and thus by direct debit. Problem: Neither account was covered. The duo therefore owed the store the money.
When this came to light, the company called the police. The case ended up in the Lüdenscheid district court. Both defendants made the same statement. Namely, that they had assumed that they had money from the employment agency in their account. The son receives almost 2,500 euros for himself and his seven children, and the mother’s account also receives state payments. The 52-year-old’s defense attorney stated that it was not his client who managed the account, but her husband. Although she did not always have a precise overview of the finances, on the days she made purchases she was “absolutely” convinced that the account was covered.
Company calls police
An authorized representative of the jeans store chain stated in the witness stand that members of the same family often make purchases in the store using cards for accounts that are not covered. At some point they noticed a certain rhythm between the incidents. The company reported this to the police. The officers then apparently successfully laid in wait.
“But I wasn’t there,” the 56-year-old remarks. He also states that an employee of the Lüdenscheid branch called him at some point to tell him that a few people were standing threateningly in front of the store. Out of fear, she asked the security at the Stern Center to accompany her to her car. But that was also just hearsay. As was information that the witness claims to have received from the police. According to this, the family is apparently already known to the police and has a ban on entering the Stern Center. The bottom line is that all of this information is too much hearsay for the court. The session is therefore adjourned. The defendant’s husband and the store employee, among others, are to be heard as witnesses at a new date. An overview of the bank balance is also to be obtained. It is not yet clear when this second attempt will take place.
