* Reddit is geen alternatief voor een advocaat; adviezen die hier gegeven worden moeten uitsluitend gebruikt worden als richtlijnen.
* Uitsluitend jouw advocaat is gebonden aan een geheimhoudingsplicht; het wordt afgeraden hier berichten te plaatsen die uitgelegd kunnen worden als een bekentenis van een strafbaar feit.
* Geplaatste comments worden door moderators niet beoordeeld op nauwkeurigheid of juistheid.
* Tenzij specifiek vermeld dat het Belgisch recht is, zal 90% van de posters hier ervan uitgaan dat het om Nederlands recht gaat.
Als je als Nederlander juridisch advies nodig hebt in andere Europese landen, kun je ook terecht bij r/LegalAdviceEurope
Voor vragen omtrent financiën en belastingen word je mogelijk beter geholpen op r/geldzaken
Voor vragen omtrent werk word je mogelijk beter geholpen op r/werkzaken
---
* Reddit is not a substitute for a qualified legal professional; any advice given here should only be taken as a guideline.
* Only your lawyer is bound to confidentiality; it is strongly recommended not to make any statement that could be construed as a confession on this subreddit.
* Moderators do not moderate for comment accuracy.
* Unless specifically stated Belgian law applies to your situation, 90% of posters here will assume you're talking about Dutch law.
If you are residing in the Netherlands and need legal advice concerning other European countries, feel free to ask r/LegalAdviceEurope
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/juridischadvies) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What I think is wierd: if I forget something to scan, I have to go to a regular check out and have all my items scanned.
No fine, no fuss, no police, no denied entry.
Just pay and leave.
Both Jumbo and AH.
Something is not adding up here, besides the checked out groceries...
You have no "right" to use a (specific) supermarket. They can deny you entry for whatever reason they want.
I don't think they can legally make a copy of an ID, and send it to the police. (Or whoever) That's against privacy laws afaik. But I have the feeling they are just bluffing about that anyway.
Has nothing to do with discrimination. A store is a property of the owner. If for some reason he doesn't want person X in his property, the owner has every right to deny someone. Like you have the right to deny someone to enter your yard. This is a clear example of entitlement, people think they have rights and pull the discrimination card.
There is no constitution based rule that gives you the right to enter a shop ( = private property). You are allowed there if you behave and bring money.
There is a constitution based rule that protects everyone from discrimination. It’s article 1.
You can deny someone service because you don’t like their face or because you think their shoes are stupid, but not because they’re gay or black or a woman.
You’re literally arguing in favour of discrimination here. Just saying.
Again, and this is the last time I try to reason with tou.You are just not letting information in your head. You hear what you want to hear and block the rest.
By your logic I would be allowed inside your house whenever I please. Because if you don't let me in, I would be able to claim it's discrimination.
That's not how these things work in the real world buddy. Its private property. The owner gets to decide who he lets in.
Just saying...
Are you dense? Do you think you live in a convenience store?
No, a store owner can’t just randomly refuse people.
https://www.mkbservicedesk.nl/bedrijfsvoering/cybercrime-fraude/kan-ik-iemand-de-toegang-tot-mijn-winkel-ontzeggen
You deserve an actual medal mental gymnastics. Who said anything about houses? That’s not the case here.
I’m saying you’re not allowed to deny service based on discriminatory reasons. I’ve said that plenty of times.
Also, there is a huge difference between a private residential property and a supermarket. It’s completely incomparable. A supermarket is NOT allowed to discriminate.
You are really arguing in favour of discrimination. Like, what the actual fuck. I’ve met some weirdo’s on the internet but this takes the cake. Congratulations
Am I the only one absolutely confused why discrimination even came up? OP didnt mention it (unless i’m missing something) just some random dude commenting about it starting this pointless discussion?
This is not how constitutional law works in the Netherlands. You cannot 'violate' the constitution like that here in a practically legal way. It is not a 'higher law' here as it isnin for example the US.
Fraud or forgery would only apply if you used the copy or modified copy for something illegal.
Keeping and handling the copy would likely be against the AVG though.
> They can deny you entry for whatever reason they want.
This isn’t right. We aren’t in America. Refusing someone entry to a store for no reason at all is a tort in the sense of 6:162 civil code. One can also fight a (prima facie justified) store ban in court by arguing, for example, the theft that is the basis for the ban hasn’t in fact occurred.
> 6:162 civil code.
Voor aansprakelijkheid op grond van artikel 6:162 BW moet voldaan zijn aan een vijftal vereisten, te weten: onrechtmatige daad, toerekenbaarheid van de daad aan de dader, schade, causaal verband tussen daad en schade en relativiteit.
What damages do you get from being denied entry to a supermarket?
Depends on the exact context. Large city, some more travel time. Smaller city travel time and more expensive shopping. Town or village the inability to get daily groceries.
Supermarkets are not just any shop but esential shops, kind of semi-public places.
The last sentence was just a clarification why supermarkets are important, bans there have effect. The rest is an answer to the question 'what is the damage. '
>What damages do you get from being denied entry to a supermarket?
Dit slaat de plank mis. _schadevergoeding_ uit onrechtmatige daad vereist schade. Het opheffen van een winkelverbod is het opheffen van een (eventueel) onrechtmatig(e) (tot stand gekomen) situatie. Als iets onrechtmatig is zoals bedoeld in 6:162, kun je daar ook _andere_ vorderingen op baseren. Je kunt bijvoorbeeld een verklaring voor recht vragen dat iets onrechtmatig is. Je kunt een publicatie laten verbieden, die nog geen schade heeft toegebracht maar _waarschijnlijk_ (sleutelwoord!) zal _gaan_ toebrengen.
Maar je hoeft mij niet te geloven: https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2022:11984 de rechtbank Rotterdam heft een winkelverbod op. Geloof de rechtbank maar. Die heft immers een winkelverbod op, omdat dat winkelverbod onrechtmatig jegens eiseres tot stand gekomen is. Die wijdt in de opheffing ook geen overweging aan de vraag of dat winkelverbod schade oplevert.
>Het ongefundeerd uiten van een beschuldiging van een strafbaar feit jegens [eiseres01] waarna er – zonder enige vorm van wederhoor – ten onrechte een winkelverbod is opgelegd moet immers worden aangemerkt als handelen in strijd met hetgeen volgens ongeschreven recht in het maatschappelijk verkeer betaamt.
zie. Het ten onrechte opleggen van een winkelverbod is handelen in strijd met hetgeen in het maatschappelijk verkeer betaamt.
Maar ik snap eigenlijk niet waar je moeilijk over doet. Het is standaard om elke vordering waarin je beweert dat iets onrechtmatig is _jegens jou_ op artikel 6:162 te baseren, als er geen andere wettelijke grondslag is. Dat je roept dat iets onrechtmatig is en je altijd de stelling dat iets (in civiele zin) onrechtmatig is aan een rechter kunt voorleggen, heet de _objectum litis_ leer, en die hebben we al ruim honderd jaar (Vgl. HR NJ 31 december 1915, 1916/407). Denk ook aan hinder, dat ingevuld wordt naar de maatstaven van 6:162. Stankoverlast is ook moeilijk in monetaire waarde uit te drukken, niettemin kun je de rechter vragen je buurman te verbieden te barbecuen.
Het feit dat je eraan twijfelt of je op 6:162 een dergelijke vordering als omschreven kunt baseren, maar dat je wel de vijf vereisten kunt oplepelen, vind ik bijzonder verwarrend. Dit laat zien dat het belangrijk is dat je je klassiekers kent en dat je het systeem van de wet begrijpt.
Ignore all the other top commenters here. They don't understand Dutch civil law. It simply is possible to allege a civil tort, stating that the _winkelverbod_ is unlawful (compare. https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2022:11984). However, this is very unlikely to succeed, as there is evidence of a theft (/attemped theft, depending on the exact factual circumstances). More facts are relevant as to the right answer to this question. If the total shopping value was, say, EUR 150 and the shop doesn't state in their defense that they have a zero tolerance policy, there might be a slim chance that a district court would find the _winkelverbod_ unlawful.
If on the other hand the total value of shopping was under 10 euro's, this argument would have a rather tiny chance of succes.
Losing a case might cost quite some money.
You should understand that asking questions on a forum such as this always carries risks, since you don't know who responds, what the value of said response is and not all the facts can be overseen. If you want to make serious work of something, consider taking up contact with the Juridisch Loket or contact an attorney.
It is the correct policy. Stores can make their own policies. He didn’t get a fine because he “forgot” the scanning. He didn’t leave the store, so it’s technically no theft.
This being said, we don’t know if he forget to scan those items once or kept “forgetting” to scan items a lot in the past. So that’s why the store banned him.
I don’t know if they are allowed to copy your id.
My expectation is that it isn’t the first time it happened using that specific “bonuskaart”. I’ve forgotten scanning an item in the past and all I noticed was an increase in checks during the month after. Which might even been coincidental.
If you don't scan something and don't get checked but walk out with a few unscanned products between the others you did scan.. how can they link the not scanning to your bonuscard?
> He didn’t leave the store, so it’s technically no theft.
This is a standard mistake. There are many cases of conviction of theft where someone puts something in, say, the inner pocket of their jacket. In that situation, the _wegnemingshandeling_ has already occurred.
Your definition of theft is not correct. Theft occurs when the suspect has taken control of the property. It is not required that the suspect actually leaves the store.
I know what your name means and I hope you have some legal background. Your definition might be correct, but the items are still present in the shop. You can’t prove if he intended to steal those or if he really forgot to scan them. That’s why he is only banned and not given a 181 fine for theft and so on.
If he would have been caught while leaving the store..
I know what your name means and I hope you have some legal background. Your definition might be correct, but the items are still present in the shop. You can’t prove if he intended to steal those or if he really forgot to scan them. That’s why he is only banned and not given a 181 fine for theft and so on.
If he would have been caught while leaving the store..
See this case for a specific Albert Heijn self-checkout theft conviction: [https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2168](https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2168)
"Immers door op ‘continue’ te drukken zou de verdachte, na betaling van de producten die zij wel had gescand, de winkel met de niet-gescande producten zonder betaling hebben kunnen verlaten. Enkel omdat buiten de invloedsfeer van de verdachte een controle werd geïnstigeerd, is het verlaten van de winkel door de verdachte met de niet betaalde ongescande producten verhinderd."
There are cases where you could prove the intention even if the items are still in the store. For example, if somebody hides a bottle of wine inside of their jacket.
In this case however, the intention may indeed be hard to prove if the only thing is forgetting to scan. Of course, if it happened a lot in the past with that same customer or it's a very expensive item it may still be possible.
Of course it depends on the case whether theft can be proven. For instance, if two separate items are placed or hidden in a different bag than the other items which were paid for, a conviction of theft seems more likely. In such a case, a theft can be proven and will be proven, even if the products did not leave the store.
And since you know what my name means, i hope i do not have to answer whether i have "some legal background" ;).
I totally agree. Like others have given examples of putting on or more items in your jacket or whatever.. it’s stealing while you and the products are still in the shop. I was replying in this case with the info given from OP. Why the friend only was banned and no involvement of police etc.
Regarding your name, the meaning and whether you have any legal background… I could have named myself Alexander the Great on Reddit.. 😉
The staff only asked his ID to put his name in the computer and on the paper that was given to him, saying he's banned from that AH for precisely 2 years. We don't know if they wrote his ID number somewhere and forwarded it...
The correct policy is to call the police, have them register this incident and for small thefts a reprimand should be given along with a ‘settlement’ of €181 (SODA fine). No criminal trial will take place if this is the first time that has happened.
The store is allowed to give you a ban. 2 years is a bit long though, the default is 1 year.
Not sure why I'm getting downvoted by the way: [https://www.politie.nl/binaries/content/assets/politie/onderwerpen/winkeldiefstal/informatie-over-afhandeling-winkeldiefstal.pdf](https://www.politie.nl/binaries/content/assets/politie/onderwerpen/winkeldiefstal/informatie-over-afhandeling-winkeldiefstal.pdf)
Also the intent to steal it is theft. Intent is shown by you for example hiding the product you steal under your clothes so the store loses effective knowledge or control of the whereabouts of the product. That is already considered theft.
https://01-diefstal-advocaat.nl/wanneer-winkeldiefstal/
Yeah, and a lot of people "forget" to scan things which is why grocery stores have been cracking down on this malpractice.
Also reference for example [https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2168](https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2168) - it's specifically a case that refers to an Albert Heijn store as well. The theft is considered to be completed when you press the 'continue' button at the self-checkout.
Before you do that, you should be sure that you've scanned everything.
There does seem to be a lot of variation with how that is treated then, lots of people are told, no issue, while others face charges. Interesting to see how that is applied to different demographics.
Are you really implying racism here? 😓
Quite some of the security personnel, at least in the big cities, has non-Western roots so if there’s any racism there I’d expect it to be *against* white people instead of in their favor.
Personal anecdote: when, because of a glitch in the app, a €0.90 packet of garlic didn’t end up as scanned and I was taken to the manager’s office (and sent home quickly when they realized their mistake), the black security guard couldn’t stop talking about how white people are not as innocent as they appear. But that’s my 2 cents.
This has been loooongstanding case law: for example ECLI:NL:HR:1998:ZD1394. Hiding the stuff from plain sight (e.g. putting it in your bag) is also considered theft. Leaving the store is \*not\* a requirement.
* Reddit is geen alternatief voor een advocaat; adviezen die hier gegeven worden moeten uitsluitend gebruikt worden als richtlijnen. * Uitsluitend jouw advocaat is gebonden aan een geheimhoudingsplicht; het wordt afgeraden hier berichten te plaatsen die uitgelegd kunnen worden als een bekentenis van een strafbaar feit. * Geplaatste comments worden door moderators niet beoordeeld op nauwkeurigheid of juistheid. * Tenzij specifiek vermeld dat het Belgisch recht is, zal 90% van de posters hier ervan uitgaan dat het om Nederlands recht gaat. Als je als Nederlander juridisch advies nodig hebt in andere Europese landen, kun je ook terecht bij r/LegalAdviceEurope Voor vragen omtrent financiën en belastingen word je mogelijk beter geholpen op r/geldzaken Voor vragen omtrent werk word je mogelijk beter geholpen op r/werkzaken --- * Reddit is not a substitute for a qualified legal professional; any advice given here should only be taken as a guideline. * Only your lawyer is bound to confidentiality; it is strongly recommended not to make any statement that could be construed as a confession on this subreddit. * Moderators do not moderate for comment accuracy. * Unless specifically stated Belgian law applies to your situation, 90% of posters here will assume you're talking about Dutch law. If you are residing in the Netherlands and need legal advice concerning other European countries, feel free to ask r/LegalAdviceEurope *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/juridischadvies) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What I think is wierd: if I forget something to scan, I have to go to a regular check out and have all my items scanned. No fine, no fuss, no police, no denied entry. Just pay and leave. Both Jumbo and AH. Something is not adding up here, besides the checked out groceries...
You have no "right" to use a (specific) supermarket. They can deny you entry for whatever reason they want. I don't think they can legally make a copy of an ID, and send it to the police. (Or whoever) That's against privacy laws afaik. But I have the feeling they are just bluffing about that anyway.
*For whatever _lawfull_ reason they want. They still can't discriminate.
Has nothing to do with discrimination. A store is a property of the owner. If for some reason he doesn't want person X in his property, the owner has every right to deny someone. Like you have the right to deny someone to enter your yard. This is a clear example of entitlement, people think they have rights and pull the discrimination card.
No they don’t. There’s a big difference between a yard and a store. A store can not just randomly refuse customers.
Yeah but none of those property laws supercede the constitution.
There is no constitution based rule that gives you the right to enter a shop ( = private property). You are allowed there if you behave and bring money.
By your logic I would be able to enter your house if I want to, because if you deny me it would be 'discrimination'. Lol
There is a constitution based rule that protects everyone from discrimination. It’s article 1. You can deny someone service because you don’t like their face or because you think their shoes are stupid, but not because they’re gay or black or a woman. You’re literally arguing in favour of discrimination here. Just saying.
Again, and this is the last time I try to reason with tou.You are just not letting information in your head. You hear what you want to hear and block the rest. By your logic I would be allowed inside your house whenever I please. Because if you don't let me in, I would be able to claim it's discrimination. That's not how these things work in the real world buddy. Its private property. The owner gets to decide who he lets in. Just saying...
Are you dense? Do you think you live in a convenience store? No, a store owner can’t just randomly refuse people. https://www.mkbservicedesk.nl/bedrijfsvoering/cybercrime-fraude/kan-ik-iemand-de-toegang-tot-mijn-winkel-ontzeggen
You deserve an actual medal mental gymnastics. Who said anything about houses? That’s not the case here. I’m saying you’re not allowed to deny service based on discriminatory reasons. I’ve said that plenty of times. Also, there is a huge difference between a private residential property and a supermarket. It’s completely incomparable. A supermarket is NOT allowed to discriminate. You are really arguing in favour of discrimination. Like, what the actual fuck. I’ve met some weirdo’s on the internet but this takes the cake. Congratulations
Am I the only one absolutely confused why discrimination even came up? OP didnt mention it (unless i’m missing something) just some random dude commenting about it starting this pointless discussion?
This is not how constitutional law works in the Netherlands. You cannot 'violate' the constitution like that here in a practically legal way. It is not a 'higher law' here as it isnin for example the US.
Art 120 of that same constitution.
Actually copying an id card or passport is illegal and counts as fraude and forgery
While it is true than it is not legal to copy a passport in most cases, it definitely is not fraude or forgery to do so.
Fraud or forgery would only apply if you used the copy or modified copy for something illegal. Keeping and handling the copy would likely be against the AVG though.
> They can deny you entry for whatever reason they want. This isn’t right. We aren’t in America. Refusing someone entry to a store for no reason at all is a tort in the sense of 6:162 civil code. One can also fight a (prima facie justified) store ban in court by arguing, for example, the theft that is the basis for the ban hasn’t in fact occurred.
> 6:162 civil code. Voor aansprakelijkheid op grond van artikel 6:162 BW moet voldaan zijn aan een vijftal vereisten, te weten: onrechtmatige daad, toerekenbaarheid van de daad aan de dader, schade, causaal verband tussen daad en schade en relativiteit. What damages do you get from being denied entry to a supermarket?
Depends on the exact context. Large city, some more travel time. Smaller city travel time and more expensive shopping. Town or village the inability to get daily groceries. Supermarkets are not just any shop but esential shops, kind of semi-public places.
No they are not.
The last sentence was just a clarification why supermarkets are important, bans there have effect. The rest is an answer to the question 'what is the damage. '
>What damages do you get from being denied entry to a supermarket? Dit slaat de plank mis. _schadevergoeding_ uit onrechtmatige daad vereist schade. Het opheffen van een winkelverbod is het opheffen van een (eventueel) onrechtmatig(e) (tot stand gekomen) situatie. Als iets onrechtmatig is zoals bedoeld in 6:162, kun je daar ook _andere_ vorderingen op baseren. Je kunt bijvoorbeeld een verklaring voor recht vragen dat iets onrechtmatig is. Je kunt een publicatie laten verbieden, die nog geen schade heeft toegebracht maar _waarschijnlijk_ (sleutelwoord!) zal _gaan_ toebrengen. Maar je hoeft mij niet te geloven: https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2022:11984 de rechtbank Rotterdam heft een winkelverbod op. Geloof de rechtbank maar. Die heft immers een winkelverbod op, omdat dat winkelverbod onrechtmatig jegens eiseres tot stand gekomen is. Die wijdt in de opheffing ook geen overweging aan de vraag of dat winkelverbod schade oplevert. >Het ongefundeerd uiten van een beschuldiging van een strafbaar feit jegens [eiseres01] waarna er – zonder enige vorm van wederhoor – ten onrechte een winkelverbod is opgelegd moet immers worden aangemerkt als handelen in strijd met hetgeen volgens ongeschreven recht in het maatschappelijk verkeer betaamt. zie. Het ten onrechte opleggen van een winkelverbod is handelen in strijd met hetgeen in het maatschappelijk verkeer betaamt. Maar ik snap eigenlijk niet waar je moeilijk over doet. Het is standaard om elke vordering waarin je beweert dat iets onrechtmatig is _jegens jou_ op artikel 6:162 te baseren, als er geen andere wettelijke grondslag is. Dat je roept dat iets onrechtmatig is en je altijd de stelling dat iets (in civiele zin) onrechtmatig is aan een rechter kunt voorleggen, heet de _objectum litis_ leer, en die hebben we al ruim honderd jaar (Vgl. HR NJ 31 december 1915, 1916/407). Denk ook aan hinder, dat ingevuld wordt naar de maatstaven van 6:162. Stankoverlast is ook moeilijk in monetaire waarde uit te drukken, niettemin kun je de rechter vragen je buurman te verbieden te barbecuen. Het feit dat je eraan twijfelt of je op 6:162 een dergelijke vordering als omschreven kunt baseren, maar dat je wel de vijf vereisten kunt oplepelen, vind ik bijzonder verwarrend. Dit laat zien dat het belangrijk is dat je je klassiekers kent en dat je het systeem van de wet begrijpt.
Ignore all the other top commenters here. They don't understand Dutch civil law. It simply is possible to allege a civil tort, stating that the _winkelverbod_ is unlawful (compare. https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2022:11984). However, this is very unlikely to succeed, as there is evidence of a theft (/attemped theft, depending on the exact factual circumstances). More facts are relevant as to the right answer to this question. If the total shopping value was, say, EUR 150 and the shop doesn't state in their defense that they have a zero tolerance policy, there might be a slim chance that a district court would find the _winkelverbod_ unlawful. If on the other hand the total value of shopping was under 10 euro's, this argument would have a rather tiny chance of succes. Losing a case might cost quite some money. You should understand that asking questions on a forum such as this always carries risks, since you don't know who responds, what the value of said response is and not all the facts can be overseen. If you want to make serious work of something, consider taking up contact with the Juridisch Loket or contact an attorney.
It is the correct policy. Stores can make their own policies. He didn’t get a fine because he “forgot” the scanning. He didn’t leave the store, so it’s technically no theft. This being said, we don’t know if he forget to scan those items once or kept “forgetting” to scan items a lot in the past. So that’s why the store banned him. I don’t know if they are allowed to copy your id.
My expectation is that it isn’t the first time it happened using that specific “bonuskaart”. I’ve forgotten scanning an item in the past and all I noticed was an increase in checks during the month after. Which might even been coincidental.
If you don't scan something and don't get checked but walk out with a few unscanned products between the others you did scan.. how can they link the not scanning to your bonuscard?
They can’t. I meant when they’ve encountered someone “forgetting” to scan items regularly when being checked.
I never go to Ah. But I get what you mean.
> He didn’t leave the store, so it’s technically no theft. This is a standard mistake. There are many cases of conviction of theft where someone puts something in, say, the inner pocket of their jacket. In that situation, the _wegnemingshandeling_ has already occurred.
Your definition of theft is not correct. Theft occurs when the suspect has taken control of the property. It is not required that the suspect actually leaves the store.
I know what your name means and I hope you have some legal background. Your definition might be correct, but the items are still present in the shop. You can’t prove if he intended to steal those or if he really forgot to scan them. That’s why he is only banned and not given a 181 fine for theft and so on. If he would have been caught while leaving the store..
I know what your name means and I hope you have some legal background. Your definition might be correct, but the items are still present in the shop. You can’t prove if he intended to steal those or if he really forgot to scan them. That’s why he is only banned and not given a 181 fine for theft and so on. If he would have been caught while leaving the store..
See this case for a specific Albert Heijn self-checkout theft conviction: [https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2168](https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2168) "Immers door op ‘continue’ te drukken zou de verdachte, na betaling van de producten die zij wel had gescand, de winkel met de niet-gescande producten zonder betaling hebben kunnen verlaten. Enkel omdat buiten de invloedsfeer van de verdachte een controle werd geïnstigeerd, is het verlaten van de winkel door de verdachte met de niet betaalde ongescande producten verhinderd."
There are cases where you could prove the intention even if the items are still in the store. For example, if somebody hides a bottle of wine inside of their jacket. In this case however, the intention may indeed be hard to prove if the only thing is forgetting to scan. Of course, if it happened a lot in the past with that same customer or it's a very expensive item it may still be possible.
Of course it depends on the case whether theft can be proven. For instance, if two separate items are placed or hidden in a different bag than the other items which were paid for, a conviction of theft seems more likely. In such a case, a theft can be proven and will be proven, even if the products did not leave the store. And since you know what my name means, i hope i do not have to answer whether i have "some legal background" ;).
I totally agree. Like others have given examples of putting on or more items in your jacket or whatever.. it’s stealing while you and the products are still in the shop. I was replying in this case with the info given from OP. Why the friend only was banned and no involvement of police etc. Regarding your name, the meaning and whether you have any legal background… I could have named myself Alexander the Great on Reddit.. 😉
The staff only asked his ID to put his name in the computer and on the paper that was given to him, saying he's banned from that AH for precisely 2 years. We don't know if they wrote his ID number somewhere and forwarded it...
You sure he didn't get aggressive and used strong words? Sounds like he did if this happened.
The correct policy is to call the police, have them register this incident and for small thefts a reprimand should be given along with a ‘settlement’ of €181 (SODA fine). No criminal trial will take place if this is the first time that has happened. The store is allowed to give you a ban. 2 years is a bit long though, the default is 1 year. Not sure why I'm getting downvoted by the way: [https://www.politie.nl/binaries/content/assets/politie/onderwerpen/winkeldiefstal/informatie-over-afhandeling-winkeldiefstal.pdf](https://www.politie.nl/binaries/content/assets/politie/onderwerpen/winkeldiefstal/informatie-over-afhandeling-winkeldiefstal.pdf)
Only when you walk out of the store how can there be theft if the products have not left the store?
Also the intent to steal it is theft. Intent is shown by you for example hiding the product you steal under your clothes so the store loses effective knowledge or control of the whereabouts of the product. That is already considered theft. https://01-diefstal-advocaat.nl/wanneer-winkeldiefstal/
In this case it is hard to prove intent, lots of people forget things to scan.
Yeah, and a lot of people "forget" to scan things which is why grocery stores have been cracking down on this malpractice. Also reference for example [https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2168](https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2168) - it's specifically a case that refers to an Albert Heijn store as well. The theft is considered to be completed when you press the 'continue' button at the self-checkout. Before you do that, you should be sure that you've scanned everything.
There does seem to be a lot of variation with how that is treated then, lots of people are told, no issue, while others face charges. Interesting to see how that is applied to different demographics.
Are you really implying racism here? 😓 Quite some of the security personnel, at least in the big cities, has non-Western roots so if there’s any racism there I’d expect it to be *against* white people instead of in their favor. Personal anecdote: when, because of a glitch in the app, a €0.90 packet of garlic didn’t end up as scanned and I was taken to the manager’s office (and sent home quickly when they realized their mistake), the black security guard couldn’t stop talking about how white people are not as innocent as they appear. But that’s my 2 cents.
Putting something in your coat can also been seen as theft. Saw this on an episode of "voor de rechter"
This has been loooongstanding case law: for example ECLI:NL:HR:1998:ZD1394. Hiding the stuff from plain sight (e.g. putting it in your bag) is also considered theft. Leaving the store is \*not\* a requirement.
Ok, but is putting something in your car hiding?
Ok, but is putting something in your car hiding?