The Kosovo couple got 4000 social francs a month wrong from Switzerland but then caught.

A couple with Kosovo citizenship have received about 2,400 francs per month benefits of unemployment and social assistance, even though both worked in part. The municipality has discovered them, and now, the Lucern Criminal Court has convicted the couple of mass fraud, writes the zentralplus.ch.

The four - child family had been targeted by authorities since 2017. Then the fact that parents had exploited the social welfare office and the unemployment fund for two years had come to light.

They presented themselves as if they were both unemployed and had no income. But, in fact, they worked in a formality. He, as a general worker, she was originally a saleswoman in a clothing store. Later she had also worked as a cleaning woman.

Sometimes my husband was paid cash. Most of the time, however, money went to a bank account that he and his wife kept secret from the authorities. They “have deceived the municipality and thus have led undeclared revenues to be ignored when the right to social assistance was calculated”, said a verdict issued by the Criminal Court in Lucen.

A total of about 27,000 francs were paid incorrectly

The man also received daily benefits of securing total unemployment of about 67,000 francs.

He also had no right to take this money. On average, the family, over two years or more, has increased its income by 2,400 francs per month through lies.

From the public prosecutor's office's point of view, there can be no “respected reasons for social welfare fraud”. The Kosovo family was not in “serious difficulties”. They have lied to authorities “just to have more money available in the month”, the indictment said.

But now the couple's “phat” for what they did. They have already taken the first step: the money taken incorrectly as social aid has already been returned. Unemployment insurance debts are paying off every month.

Deal with the Prosecutor

These reactions and their acceptance of the work have led the couple to gain better treatment. The Public Prosecutor's Office has in this case offered the so-called cut procedure. Thus, the prosecutor and the defence have agreed to a sentence that is appropriate for both sides. And in such a case, the court has only the opportunity to approve “Agreement” or not.