Cheating and Fraud in Thailand

Section 341

Likewise this outlines the offense of cheating and fraud. This is whereby a person dishonestly deceives another through falsehoods. This or concealing facts to obtain property or manipulate documents, punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding six thousand Baht, or both.

Paragraph 1:

This paragraph outlines the offense of fraud or deceit. Likewise imprisonment not exceeding three years or fined not exceeding six thousand Baht, or both.

Paragraph 2:

Likewise this paragraph specifies that if the offense of fraud or deceit is committed by a person who is a public official. So punishment shall be imprisonment not exceeding five years or fined not exceeding ten thousand Baht, or both.

Paragraph 3:

Lastly this paragraph addresses the punishment for committing the offense of fraud or deceit in relation to the sale, purchase, exchange, mortgage, pledge, or lease of immovable property, or in relation to the sale, purchase, or exchange of valuable securities. It states that the punishment for such offenses shall be imprisonment not exceeding five years or fined not exceeding ten thousand Baht, or both.

Case Example (Embezzlement or Deception)

The defendant in this case as I highlighted had employed deception by falsely claiming to be the leader of a lottery sharing circle and enticing the plaintiff to participate by purchasing and sharing tickets. This is very common in Thailand. The plaintiff, misled by the defendant’s false representations. Then agreed to buy into the scheme and paid the defendant 7,000 baht.

However, it was later discovered that the defendant had not actually established a lottery sharing circle as claimed. The defendant’s actions constitute embezzlement under Section 341 of the Criminal Code. I have also written on the article on fraud in Thailand which you can use to compare. Supreme Court Judgment No. 856/2510

Case Example (Falsehoods)

Falsehoods as been explained here. Subsequent changes to the Criminal Code have eliminated the specific offense of fraud involving the use of witchcraft, thereby nullifying the charges initially brought against the defendants under Sections 304 and 306(2). Furthermore, the plaintiff’s claim does not meet the criteria for a special case under Section 342 of the Criminal Code. (Concealment). Note the difference between falsehood (actively providing false information) and concealment (actively hiding information).

The old Criminal Code had a specific clause which covered witchcraft. If I recall correctly it was a punishable offense in Thailand to deceive others by falsely claiming to possess supernatural abilities or powers. Such as the ability to use witchcraft or magic for a number of purposes. The definition has been widened to general falsehoods.

As a result, the defendants’ wrongdoing is now classified as ordinary fraud under Section 341 of the Criminal Code, corresponding to the previously cited Criminal Code Section 304. The maximum penalty for this offense is imprisonment for not more than 3 years, which is lighter than the penalty prescribed under Criminal Code Section 306(2). Supreme Court Judgment No. 933/2500

Section 342

Likewise this specifies aggravated circumstances. This such as impersonation or exploiting the lack of intelligence or mental weakness of the deceived person. Likewise this is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding ten thousand Baht, or both. Section 342(1) addresses fraud committed by impersonation or pretending to be someone else. Section 342(2) covers fraud involving the use of false documents or forged instruments. Also Section 342(3) addresses fraud involving the use of false information or concealment. Section 342(4) addresses fraud involving the use of threats or coercion. Lastly also see more on the cheating and fraud in Thailand.

– Impersonation

Lets look at an example of impersonation. The defendant in this case utilized fraudulent means by presenting documentation, including Ms. 3 Kor. and a copy of S.’s blurred identification card, to deceive the victim into believing that they were indeed S., the owner of the land. By misrepresenting themselves as another individual, the defendant successfully obtained a loan from the victim under false pretenses. As I said before that this conduct constitutes an offense under Section 342(1) of the Criminal Code, which addresses fraud committed by impersonation. Supreme Court Judgment No. 20/2003 – This is Section 342(1) pertains to cheating or fraud committed by impersonation.

– False documents or forged instruments

This lawsuit asserts that the defendant engaged in fraudulent conduct by exploiting the plaintiff’s mental condition and vulnerability. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant deceived them by falsely claiming that Leklai, a purported substance, could completely cure the illness the plaintiff was suffering from. Likewise the plaintiff further asserts that their mental weakness, stemming from their illness, made them more susceptible to the defendant’s deception.

In this context, the plaintiff’s lawsuit may be considered complete under Section 342(2) of the Criminal Code, which addresses fraud involving the use of false information or forged instruments. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3839/2526.

You will note that witchcraft is also covered under Section 341 as I noted above. This all becomes part of the cheating and fraud in Thailand article.

Section 343

Likewise this section addresses offenses committed by asserting falsehoods or concealing facts to the public. This is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding ten thousand Baht, or both. If aggravated circumstances apply, the offender may face imprisonment of six months to seven years and a fine of one thousand to fourteen thousand Baht.

The defendant operated an employment business without obtaining the required license from the legal registrar. However, the defendant’s deceptive tactics involved presenting false statements to victims to solicit money for services. It’s worth noting that this deception did not involve misrepresenting information to the general public.

Rather the defendant persuaded individuals to stay at home and encouraged them to refer others to apply for jobs with the defendant. As such, the defendant’s actions do not constitute the offense of defrauding the public under Section 343 of the Criminal Code; instead, they align more closely with the offense of fraud under Section 341. Supreme Court Judgment No. 448/2532

Section 344

Likewise this pertains to deceiving ten or more persons to perform work without intending to pay them or intending to pay lower wages, punishable by imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding six thousand Baht, or both.

If I use an example where the defendant was accused of violating Section 344 of the Criminal Code. This however requires the person to have the intention of prompting the victim to perform work without providing promised wages. However in this specific case the victims were deceived into sending money without any actual work being performed. So this could not be prosecuted under Section 344.

In the second case, the defendant was involved in wage fraud under Section 344 of the Criminal Code. To establish guilt under this section, the defendant must demonstrate dishonest intent to defraud the victim when agreeing to work arrangements. In the absence of evidence indicating fraudulent intent at the time of agreement, any subsequent failure to fulfill agreed-upon wages constitutes a civil breach of contract rather than a criminal offense. Thus, the defendant’s actions did not amount to a criminal offense but rather constituted a breach of contract. See above as I wrote more on cheating and fraud in Thailand.

As you will note the two examples show that there must be intention to defraud people by getting them to work and then not to pay their wages.

Section 345

This Section penalizes knowingly ordering and consuming food or drink or staying in a hotel without the means to pay, punishable by imprisonment not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding five hundred Baht, or both. Likewise also see the Thai Hotel law on this website.

Case Example

Under Criminal Code Section 345, which governs the consumption of food or drinks, it is established that payment is typically rendered upon the completion of consumption at the seller’s trade premises. In the present scenario, the defendant dispatched an individual to procure alcohol from the victim’s establishment, assuring the victim that payment would be settled at a later time.

Subsequently, another party retrieved the alcohol the following day, with the victim consenting to this arrangement. Thus, the transaction in question reflects a mutual agreement predicated on trust between the parties involved, and does not fall within the purview of Criminal Code Section 345. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1077/2511

The payment made for staying in a hotel constitutes compensation for services rendered and does not qualify as property or value lost due to an offense under Section 345 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, the prosecutor lacks the authority to demand such money on behalf of the victim in accordance with the provisions of this section. Supreme Court Judgment No. 2197/2516

Likewise under Section 345 of the Criminal Code pertains to the ordering and consumption of food, typically conducted at food establishments. This with an implicit understanding that the person who orders will settle with payment. In the present case, the defendant, preparing for his daughter’s wedding, pre-ordered 18 tables of food priced at 200 baht each. This to be served at an alternate location. This transaction resembles a lump-sum contract. Therefore, should the defendant fail to remit the agreed-upon payment, it would constitute a breach of civil contract rather than a criminal offense. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1686/2505

The three examples shown ended with either payment or it became a civil case. Likewise the problem with getting the prosecution under Section 345 is that the prosecutor has to be able to show “an intention’’ not to pay. That would be very rare.

Section 346

Likewise this addresses inducing someone, particularly a weak-minded person or a child lacking intelligence, to dispose of property at a disadvantage. Likewise this is  punishable by imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding four thousand Baht.

Section 347

This deals with maliciously causing danger to insured property to obtain insurance benefits/ This is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding two thousand Baht, or both.

Section 348

Lastly this states that the offenses in this chapter, except under Section 343, are compoundable offenses.

Lastly this sums up the cheating and fraud in Thailand article. See also other article on here such as the articles on child abandonment as well as murder charges as well. 

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