Sentence from Bülach district court Two Swiss ripped off parking offenders

Carsten Dörges

13.3.2025

A parking fine stuck behind a windshield wiper. (symbolic image)
A parking fine stuck behind a windshield wiper. (symbolic image)
Bild: sda

14 months' conditional imprisonment for commercial extortion and multiple official fraud: the Bülach District Court handed down a clear sentence to two managers of a parking enforcement company.

No time? blue News summarizes for you

  • Two managing directors of a parking control company have been sentenced to 14 months' conditional imprisonment.
  • The Bülach District Court found the defendants guilty of commercial extortion and multiple counts of usurpation of authority.
  • The company from Bülach sent out inflated invoices that resembled police fines.

"We have a rotten business model here that cannot be glossed over," explained the judge in Bülach District Court, adding: "There is no room for private robbery in the sensitive area of traffic control."

For two managing directors of a parking control company, this sentence means 14 months' conditional imprisonment each for commercial extortion and multiple counts of usurpation of authority. In addition, the men must pay back to the state the money they over-collected, amounting to almost 13,000 francs.

Turnover of around 36,000 francs

The company was responsible for monitoring several parking lots in the Lake Zurich region in 2022, as the "Zürichsee-Zeitung" writes. Between February and May, around 700 invoices were sent out requesting payment of between 70 and 90 francs. The invoices looked like official police fines, which the accused denied. For the court, however, this fulfilled the accusation of official fraud.

Around 360 people then paid the inflated claim, which generated revenue of around 36,000 francs for the defendants. For the public prosecutor, however, it is quite clear from other cases before the Federal Court and the High Court that 60 francs should be regarded as the upper limit. The parking offenders had paid too much, "certainly not voluntarily, but under pressure", explained the judge.

The judgment is not yet legally binding. But now the private plaintiffs' claims for damages are next on the agenda.