Burglary of a Business Premises

G.A.M. Legal Alliance > Criminal Law > Burglary of a Business Premises

Burglary is another common crime in Thailand. This is as common as assault in Thailand and the Thai government sees this as a serious offense. This is particularly when it involves the unlawful entry of a building at night. This accompanied by possession of a weapon makes it much more serious. Thai criminal law recognizes various degrees of burglary under the Thai Penal Code, especially when aggravating circumstances such as nighttime, intent to steal, or use of weapons are involved.

Burglary of a Business Premises

Burglary in Thailand

This case study analyzes a fictional but legally realistic scenario. The case is Public Prosecutor v. Mr. Aran Phongchai. This is where the accused is charged with burglary of a business premises at night. This while he was armed with a knife. Now as an example this case outlines the relevant statutory provisions. Likewise also the procedural steps under the Criminal Procedure Code. The legal reasoning of the court is also given some air time and the final judgment.

 

II. Charges

 
Mr. Aran Phongchai was charged with the following offenses: Firstly there was the nighttime burglary with Intent to steal. This would fall under Section 334 and Section 335 (1), (4), and (6) of the Thai Penal Code Secondly carrying a Weapon in Public without Permission falls under Section 371 of the Thai Penal Code Lastly there is the issue if trespassing at Night which falls under Section 362 and Section 365 (1) of the Thai Penal Code
 
 

III. Factual Background

 
On the night of March 11, 2024, at approximately 01:15 AM, Mr. Aran Phongchai unlawfully entered a locked mini mart. This mini mart was located on Sukhumvit Road, Bangkok. He had gained access by prying open a rear ventilation window by using a screwdriver. The CCTV footage from the store recorded Mr. Aran crawling into the premises and searching drawers and the cash register.
 
He was armed with a knife with a 15cm blade, concealed under his shirt. At the time of entry, no employees were present as the mini mart was closed. A silent alarm notified the police, who arrived within five minutes and arrested Mr. Aran inside the premises. 
 
Upon arrest, he was found with the following in his possession. He was found with 2,900 baht in cash as well as a black utility knife. He also had a small bag containing tools (screwdriver, pliers, gloves). 
 
 

IV. Applicable Legal Provisions

 
Theft and Aggravated Burglary (Sections 334 and 335 Penal Code) Section 334 (Theft): 
 
“Whoever dishonestly takes away any property belonging to another person shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding three years or fined not more than sixty thousand baht, or both.
 
“Section 335 (Aggravated Theft): Should the offense under Section 334 is committed with the following :  (1)
 
Entering during the night (4). Likewise entering a dwelling or business premises (6) Entering with a weapon, Then the offender would be punished. This with imprisonment of one to five years and a fine of twenty thousand to one hundred thousand baht.”
 
Trespass by Night (Sections 362 and 365 Penal Code) Section 362:  “Whoever enters into any dwelling or structure used as a residence or place of business without permission shall be guilty of trespass.”Section 365(1):  “If the offense under Section 362 is committed by night, the punishment shall be increased to imprisonment of one to five years and a fine of ten thousand to one hundred thousand baht.” 
 
 
Carrying a Weapon (Section 371 Penal Code)
 
Section 371:  “Whoever carries arms or weapons in a public place without permission and without reasonable cause shall be punished with a fine not exceeding 1,000 baht.” 
 
 
Evidence Presented at Trial A. Prosecution presented Evidence
 
• Firstly there is the CCTV footage showing Mr. Aran entering the business
• There is the testimony of police officers, who apprehended the accused inside the shop.
• Likewise there was also seized evidence including cash, tools, and the weapon.
• Lastly the forensic evidence, confirming Mr. Aran’s fingerprints on the cash register
• Finally there is the store owner’s testimony confirming the store was locked.
 
 
 B. Defense Argument Mr. Aran testified has testified in his defense:
 
• He entered the building by mistake while intoxicated.
• Yes, he carried the knife for personal protection and did not use it.
• The money in his pocket was his as he had no intention to steal.
• The was no forensic counter-evidence. 
 
 

Legal Analysis A. Elements of Burglary

 
Met In the judgment the court found that the prosecution had beyond a reasonable doubt had proven that the accused was guilty of what he was accused of.
 
• Mr. Aran unlawfully had entered a business premises at night.
• He did carry a weapon without lawful authority in the store.
• He committed theft once inside the mini mart and had taken 2,900 baht from the till.
• His entry into the store was accomplished by force (prying open a window).
 
 
Nighttime Aggravation Under Section 335(1), burglary committed at night automatically increases severity. The entry at 01:15 AM qualifies. C. Weapon Enhancement Possession of a knife, even if not brandished, satisfies the weapon enhancement under Section 335(6), as the intent and capability of violence are considered. D. Rejection of Intoxication Defense
 
The defense raised the issue of intoxication. This was rejected under Section 65 of the Penal Code, which states:  “Voluntary intoxication shall not be a ground to exempt criminal liability.” Since Mr. Aran consumed alcohol of his own volition. Hence the court did not accept it as a valid excuse for his actions. 
 
Judgment
 
The Thailand Criminal Court ruled as follows:
 
• The defendant is guilty of burglary under Sections 334 and 335 (1), (4), and (6).
• The defendant is guilty of trespassing by night under Sections 362 and 365(1).
• Lastly the defendant is guilty of carrying a weapon in public under Section 371.
 
Total Sentence: 5 years and 6 months imprisonment with a fine of 60,000 baht. The knife and burglary tools confiscated as well as the 2,900 baht returned to the complainant. Now as the defendant confessed partially, the court reduced his sentence by one-third. His final sentence was 3 years and 8 months imprisonment with a fine of 40,000 baht.
 
 

Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion

 
In delivering its judgment, the court which emphasize the seriousness of nighttime burglary and the necessity of deterring such conduct, especially when a weapon is involved.The court weighed the following aggravating and mitigating factors: 
 
Factor Consideration
 
  • Aggravating Entry at night, intent to steal, use of a weapon
  • Mitigating Partial confession, no prior criminal record, non-violent arrest
 
The court had emphasized the the presence of a weapon during a nighttime burglary. That this possession justified the full application of Section 335 enhancements. You will notice that because of his partial co-operation once arrested that he was given a lighter sentence. 
 
Section 335
 
You will note that emphasis with regards to Section 335 of the act. The Criminal Code outlines specific circumstances under which theft is considered more serious. Likewise it will also carry a much more heavier penalties. 
 
Note that these circumstances include theft occurring at night or in the midst of a disaster, or by employing certain methods like disguise or impersonation. The section also covers theft within specific locations like dwellings or places of public service, or by using a passage not intended for human entrance. Section 335 elevates the penalties for theft when committed under specified aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances are as follows:
 
• Firstly when it is committed at night. 
• Secondly during a disaster like an earthquake or a fire or flood or an accident.
• Thirdly by damaging a barricade. Likewise when you use an unintended passage, or worst yet where you disguising yourself
• This can be inside a dwelling, public place, or official location.Lastly where the theft occurs in places of public worship or transportation. 
 
Depending on the circumstances encountered. You will note that there would be a difference if you committed theft on the BTS system compared to in the streets. Likewise committing theft in a temple would carry a higher sentence that theft on the streets. Notice how important the circumstances around theft becomes in Thai criminal law. 
 
 

Legal Implications

 
This case reiterates several principles of Thai criminal law and procedure:
 
 
Principle Legal Basis
 
  • Burglary with a weapon makes this an aggravated offense. See the Penal Code Penal Code Section 335(1) and Section 336
  • Burglary of a place of business at night is more severely punished than during the day. Penal Code Section 335 (2) and Section 336
  • Use of a weapon, even if not used directly, increases culpability. Penal Code Section 371
  • Possession of stolen goods may imply participation in the burglary. Penal Code Section 358 and inference under Section 83  
  • Circumstantial evidence and forensic traces (e.g., fingerprints) are sufficient for conviction Criminal Procedure Code Sections 226–227  
  • A lawful search must adhere to judicial procedures. When he was searched Criminal Procedure Code Section 94  
  • Right to remain silent and to legal representation must be upheld Criminal Procedure Code Section 134/2  
 
 
 

Thailand Issues

Lets start with the industrial estate authority of Thailand who manages industrial estates. Also look at obtaining the BOI certificate Thailand for your factory. Likewise you don’t need to worry about manufacturing zoning as well. You must also look into the factory license Thailand. Lastly also look into the manufacturing licence in Thailand. Speak to our factory registration lawyer in Thailand.

The information contained in our website is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advices. For further information, please contact us.

“criminal

 

Criminal Law