Graz Court Sentences Man to Prison Over 48 Euro Taxi Fraud

Weil ich deppat war, said a 38-year-old Rwandan citizen when asked by a judge why he did not simply take a bus instead of a taxi he knew he could not afford to pay for. The man now faces a prison sentence over a 48-euro fare dispute at the Graz-Ost District Court.

Graz District Court Trial Over A 40-Euro Taxi Fare

The defendant sat alone on a chair in the middle of Courtroom A at the Graz-Ost District Court, facing a judge with ten previous criminal convictions hanging over his record. The prosecution centered on a taxi ride where the passenger boarded knowing he lacked the funds to cover the trip, resulting in an unpaid fare of 40 euros that created a total financial dispute of 48 euros. When the judge asked if he understood the charge of attempted fraud, the defendant replied that it was just fraud, prompting the judge to correct him that the offense was completed. The accused admitted guilt immediately, stating he had been drunk on the day of the offense.

Taxi Driver Seeks Recovery of 40 Euros

The taxi driver told the court that the passenger had hailed him at an intersection and asked to be driven to a specific destination. Upon arrival, the passenger left the vehicle with the promise that he would retrieve money from his sister, handing over his electronic health insurance card as collateral. After waiting between twenty and thirty minutes without seeing the passenger return, the driver contacted the police. The driver joined the criminal proceedings to recover the 40-euro loss, stating he would like to have the money. The defendant, who relies on Styrian basic welfare support, did not have the cash on hand and stated he could only raise it within five days.

Two-Month Prison Sentence Handed Down By The Judge

The judge delivered a guilty verdict, citing that the defendant had been convicted multiple times previously due to the same harmful inclination. The court sentenced him to a two-month prison term. An existing eight-month suspended sentence was not revoked, but its probation period was extended. The court proceedings established that minor offenses will continue to carry immediate prison consequences for the 38-year-old defendant due to his extensive criminal history.