Both utility bills and restaurant bills are demands to satisfy a debt after the service have been rendered. And in cases of rental properties, it’s refusal to pay even before the service (the legal right to reside in the property) is rendered, since most leases require paying on the first of the month. Why shouldn’t they all just be considered either all civil or all criminal. I don’t understand the inconsistency in legislation.
Country: United States of America
Laws are inconsistent and don’t always make sense. My guess is they consider someone who actively chooses to go into a restaurant with the intention of not paying is more of a thief. Everyone needs a place to live (homelessness is de facto illegal in many respects) and failure to pay your rent or mortgage seems both more sympathetic (on the surface at least) and passive, because it may be due to circumstances beyond your control (loss of income, health problems, etc).