Man took grand piano with him when he moved out

When he moved out of his rented apartment, a man took furniture with him that was worth almost CHF 30,000. The only problem was: it didn't belong to him.
 

The heavy workload of the criminal justice system is well known. Every now and then, however, a case with a particularly bizarre set of circumstances appears on the long list of cases to be tried. The following story from a small town in the canton of Zug is one such example.

For two and a half years, Alessandro F.* lived in a 4.5-room apartment on the outskirts of the town. When he moved into his new home, he found that it already contained a dining table with four chairs, a sofa, two beds with mattresses, and a floor lamp. The furniture belonged to the landlord and owner of the apartment. Furthermore, the previous tenant had left other items in the apartment: a garden table with six chairs and a Bechstein grand piano, valued at approximately CHF 20,000. According to the public prosecutor's indictment, these items were "made available for use" to Alessandro F.

The tenant apparently understood this differently - or wanted to understand it differently. When he moved out of the apartment three years ago, he had the above-mentioned furniture items, with a total value of almost CHF 30,000, picked up by a moving company, and stored them temporarily in Rümlang, Zurich. From there, they were to be transported abroad.

Unfurnished was, in fact, furnished
The Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) initially wanted to resolve the case by means of a summary penalty order (Strafbefehl). This was issued in March of last year, and the defendant was convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to a suspended fine of 60 daily rates of CHF 650 each, totalling CHF 39,000. A fine of CHF 9,750 was also payable. But the defendant contested the penalty order, and this led to the case being heard by the Zug Criminal Court (Strafgericht Zug) last June, almost three years after the defendant had vacated the rented apartment.

The descriptions in the court's judgement painted a rather confusing picture: Alessandro F. says he signed the lease for an unfurnished apartment. But the apartment was furnished when he moved in,. The landlord told him he could do whatever he wanted with the furniture, but that he should leave the apartment as he found it.

Communication with the landlord had been difficult before he moved out. Alessandro F. wondered what he should do: leave the apartment as he found it (i.e., with the furniture) or leave it as stipulated in the lease (i.e., unfurnished). As he hadn't heard from the landlord again, he opted for the second option – and had the furniture removed.

Although it wasn't his, the tenant had a grand piano worth CHF 20,000 removed.  Symbolic stock photo

The apartment is not a storage place
It is not clear from the verdict why the defendant concluded that this was the right solution to the problem. During the investigation, he stated that he was "a little upset," especially as he had already lived in the apartment for a year and taken over all the furniture. He didn't understand why he should return it. After all, the apartment "is not a storage place."

According to the verdict, it is clear that the items did not belong to him and that he was not allowed to simply take them. First, there was a list of the furniture that Alessandro F. was supposed to leave in the apartment. These were precisely the pieces of furniture that he later had removed. Secondly, the owner of the grand piano had asked several times when she could pick it up. And third, it is "not credible that the defendant would incur high transport and storage costs for the furniture, just to be able to return the apartment according to the contract."

The criminal court concluded that Alessandro F. had not had the furniture removed simply due to a misunderstanding. He was therefore found guilty of embezzlement, and was sentenced to a suspended fine of 88 daily rates of CHF 330 each, totalling CHF 29,040.
The probationary period is two years, and the verdict is not yet legally binding, as the defendant has filed an appeal. The High Court (Obergericht) will therefore also have to deal with the "grand piano case."

*Name changed by the editors.