Fare Evasion (§ 265a StGB) – Elements, Penalties and Defense

In brief: Fare evasion and other forms of “obtaining services by deception” under § 265a StGB – above all travelling without a valid ticket – are punishable by up to one year of imprisonment or a fine. Also covered are the misuse of automated machines and gaining entry to events without paying. Where the value is low, the offense is prosecuted only on complaint. The defense focuses on the intent not to pay, on the element of “obtaining by deception” and on the options for discontinuance; particularly important is avoiding substitute custodial sentences for repeated fare evasion, and – for foreign nationals – the knock-on effects on residence status.

The most frequent case of § 265a is fare evasion – travelling on public transport without a valid ticket. What is often perceived as a mere ticketing matter is legally a criminal offense with lasting consequences. This article explains the elements, the sentencing range and the concrete options for action.

What § 265a StGB Covers

Liable is whoever, with the intent not to pay the charge, obtains by deception:

• the service of an automated machine (for example a vending or gaming machine) or of a public telecommunications network,
• transport by a means of conveyance – the classic case of fare evasion on buses, trams, underground and trains,
• entry to an event or facility, such as a concert, a stadium or a swimming pool without paying admission.

The range is up to one year of imprisonment or a fine, insofar as the act is not punishable more severely under other provisions (§ 265a is subsidiary). The attempt is punishable (§ 265a(2)). Where the charge is of low value – which is regularly the case with a single fare – the offense is prosecuted only on complaint (§ 265a(3) in conjunction with § 248a StGB), unless the prosecution affirms a special public interest.

The Concept of “Obtaining by Deception”

According to the case law, obtaining transport by deception already suffices where the offender uses the means of conveyance without a valid ticket while surrounding themselves with the appearance of proper conduct – that is, behaving like an ordinary paying passenger. A special overcoming of security barriers (such as jumping a turnstile) is, on this view, not required. This broad interpretation is criticised in the literature, which in part demands the circumvention of an actual security measure. The dispute can be relevant in the individual case, for instance where access is entirely unsecured.

The Reform Debate

The criminal liability of fare evasion is the subject of an ongoing political debate. Critics point to the high number of proceedings, the burden on the justice system and the fact that substitute custodial sentences disproportionately affect socially disadvantaged people; they call for a downgrading to a mere administrative offense. Various reform proposals have been discussed. Until a change in the law takes effect, however, fare evasion remains a criminal offense under § 265a.

Intent: the Intention Not to Pay

§ 265a requires the intention not to pay the charge, and this intention must already exist at the time of boarding. Whoever forgot the ticket at home, inadvertently used an invalid or expired ticket, boarded the wrong zone by mistake or intended to buy a ticket on board does not act with this intention. Proving the intention – which the prosecution must establish – is a central point of attack for the defense, especially since it concerns an inner fact that can rarely be proven directly.

Typical Situations

In practice we encounter above all the ticket inspection on a train or tram without a valid ticket, the repeated use of expired or wrong-zone tickets, the misuse of automated machines, and gaining entry to events without paying. Each situation raises its own questions of intent and of the “appearance of proper conduct”.

Substitute Custodial Sentences and Repeat Offenders

Of great practical importance is the risk of a substitute custodial sentence: whoever does not pay a fine for fare evasion must “serve” it in custody. Especially in the case of repeated fare evasion by people in precarious circumstances, this frequently leads to imprisonment that is out of all proportion to the underlying fare. The defense therefore aims at discontinuance, payment of the fine in instalments, community service instead of custody, and the joining of several proceedings so that they are dealt with together and a single overall sentence is formed.

Special Considerations for Expats and Foreign Nationals

For expats and foreign nationals, even a seemingly minor fare-evasion proceeding can have disproportionate consequences. A criminal conviction is entered in the Federal Central Criminal Register and can become relevant for residence permits, naturalisation and visa matters – authorities may take previous convictions into account, and repeated entries can weigh heavily. A summons or a penalty order in German should therefore never be ignored; the deadlines – in particular the two-week objection period against a penalty order – are strict, and letting them lapse turns the penalty order into a final conviction. Early advice, ideally in your own language, is essential to avoid a conviction and its knock-on effects on your residence status.

Strategy and Options for Action

1. Remain Silent and Obtain File Access

Make no statement on the matter without defense counsel (§ 136 StPO). Only file inspection (§ 147 StPO) shows the precise allegation and the evidence of intent.

2. Deny the Intention

If the intention not to pay the charge is missing – for instance in the case of a forgotten, expired or invalid ticket, or an intention to pay on board – the offense is not made out.

3. Complaint Requirement and Subsequent Payment

Where the charge is of low value, the offense is prosecuted only on complaint; the increased fare can be paid subsequently and an understanding with the transport company sought, which can remove the basis for prosecution.

4. Seek Discontinuance (§§ 153, 153a StPO)

Especially for first offenders and minor loss, a discontinuance – often against a minor monetary condition – is a realistic aim and avoids a conviction altogether.

5. Avoid Custody

Where there are several proceedings and a substitute custodial sentence looms, instalment payment, community service (discharge through free labour) and the joining of the proceedings are decisive in averting imprisonment.

6. Meet the Deadlines

Against a penalty order, an objection must be lodged within two weeks. Missing this deadline results in a final conviction – acting quickly is essential.

Consequences of a Conviction

Every conviction is entered in the Federal Central Criminal Register; it appears in the certificate of good conduct as a rule only from more than 90 daily units of a fine (§ 32 BZRG). However, several entries for fare evasion can accumulate and have long-term adverse effects – for foreign nationals also under residence law, and generally for professions that require a clean certificate of good conduct.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is fare evasion a criminal offense?

Yes, at present it is punishable under § 265a StGB – even though its criminal liability is politically debated. A fine or imprisonment of up to one year may be imposed.

What if I only forgot my ticket?

Then the intention not to pay the charge is usually missing – the offense is not made out. The circumstances must be set out precisely.

How do I avoid a custodial sentence?

Through discontinuance, subsequent payment, instalment payment of the fine or community service instead of a substitute custodial sentence. Early defense is especially important here.

Can fare evasion affect my residence status?

Yes. For foreign nationals, a criminal conviction can be relevant for residence permits, naturalisation and visas – which is why even minor cases should be defended rather than ignored.

I received a penalty order in German – what should I do?

Do not ignore it. You have two weeks to lodge an objection. Have the penalty order reviewed by a defense lawyer immediately, as the deadline is strict.

How We Can Help

In fare-evasion cases, the intention and the correct steering of the proceedings decide the outcome – and whether imprisonment ultimately looms. We defend you in Bonn and throughout the Rhineland, including English-speaking clients; more on our page for criminal defense in Bonn.

This article provides a general overview and does not replace advice in an individual case. A reliable assessment is only possible after inspection of the file and a personal consultation.

Written by attorney Philip Bafteh, criminal defense attorney in Bonn. Philip Bafteh publishes regularly on criminal and commercial law and defends accused persons in investigative and trial proceedings.

More about the attorney →

Last updated: July 2026