Common Property Crimes

When we look at the Thai criminal code we see that Chapter 4 of the code covers fraud in Thailand. This could include such crimes as forgery as well as deception as well as embezzlement. The punishment’s for these differ. Below we have added the relevant sections of the laws as well as examples of their use in the real world.

Section 341: Defines fraud as dishonestly deceiving another person to cause loss or damage. Punishment includes imprisonment of up to three years and fines up to 6,000 Baht.

Note also that under Section 341 of the Criminal Code. This is a compoundable offense. Prescription how is set as follows. The victim of fraud must file a complaint within 3 months. This from the date of knowledge of the offense as well as the identity of the offender; otherwise, the case will be null and void. Supreme Court Decision No. 1413/1992.

The Court of First Instance had found the defendant deceived and took the plaintiff’s title deed from the plaintiff’s wife. He however was not convicted of fraud under Section 341 of the Criminal Code. The reason was that it did not involve withdrawal or destruction of the title deed. On appeal the defendant’s actions constituted fraud. The Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant’s actions were indeed fraud under Section 341. The Supreme Court concluded that a contract document. This even if a single sheet of paper, is considered property. Since the defendant deceived and took this contract document from the plaintiff’s wife by fraud, he was found guilty of fraud under Section 341 of the Criminal Code. Supreme Court Decision No. 4046/1993.

Section 342: Addresses fraud involving public deception, with harsher penalties.

The defendant used an NS.3 Kor. Form. This was with the name person S. The copy of person S.’s ID card was blurred in order to deceive the injured party. Making them believe that the person was person S., the real owner of the land. This was done in order to obtain a loan. This act constitutes the crime of defrauding another person by impersonating another person under Section 342(1) of the Criminal Code. Supreme Court Decision No. 933/2500

The defendants had deceived people by selling them water that they said was blessed by the goddess Samrong and that it will cure diseases. The people believed them and drank the canal water. They paid ten thousand baht for this. First defendant splashed the canal water with his feet, and the second defendant supported the false claims. Both defendants were found guilty of fraud. This was under Section 343 of the Criminal Code. The lawsuit was not under Sections 341 and 342 however under Section 343 as it included both sections. Supreme Court Decision No. 557/2502

You need to understand the difference between misappropriation and theft or fraud, This is explained as unauthorized use of another person’s property. This is covered in Chapter 4 of the Penal Code addresses this offense.

Section 352: Punishes misappropriation with imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to 6,000 Baht.

The defendant was an employee of the injured party. His position was taking goods and selling it and paying the injured party. The defendant however took the goods and sold the goods as collateral. He misappropriated the goods and sold it which makes him guilty of embezzlement under Section 352 of the Penal Code. The defendant’s appeal, arguing about the nature of employment and salary, was not deemed material to the case and was adjudicated under Section 249 and Section 15 of the CPC. Supreme Court Decision No. 4181/1999

In another case where a company employee used corporate funds for his own personal expenses. The court in that case ruled it as misappropriation under Section 352 and sentenced the individual to two years’ imprisonment.

Trespassing is outlined in Chapter 8 of the Thai Penal Code.

Section 362: Criminalizes unauthorized entry onto another person’s property, with imprisonment of up to one year or fines of up to 2,000 Baht.

This is an old case where there was a verbal agreement to use a rice field for rice farming in exchange for rental. This at the time was viewed as a rice field rental under Section 4 of the Rice Field Rental Control Act B.E. 2517. Now by renting the rice field from the defendant (owner), the plaintiff (renter) was the rightful possessor. When the defendant came to sow rice he interfered with the plaintiff’s possession. This had now constituted a crime of trespassing under Section 362 of the Criminal Code. Supreme Court Decision No. 2103/1979.

Section 364: Covers aggravated trespass, such as entry with intent to commit another crime.

The first crime is explained by the defendant having pawned the bicycle with the victim. Later he trespassed on the property by sneaking into the victim’s house at 5:30 a.m. His wanting to retrieve the bicycle was deemed unreasonable. Likewise, the defendant was found guilty of trespassing. Supreme Court Decision No. 1699/1986

If you are receiving stolen property in Thailand then you will know that it is a criminal offense under Chapter 8 of the Penal Code.

Section 357: Criminalizes knowingly receiving stolen property, with imprisonment of up to five years and fines of up to 10,000 Baht.

The defendants 1 and 2 has been found guilty of joint robbery. However the others has been defendant 3 who was guilty of receiving stolen property (an electric iron in this case). Likewise defendant 4 was also found guilty of receiving stolen property (he got a stereo radio). The victim already got this back so defendants 3 as well as 4 did not need to join the other defendants in returning or paying for the unrecovered properties. Supreme Court Decision No. 1936/1997

The defendant in this case confessed to the criminal offense of receiving stolen property. This under Section 357 of the Criminal Code. He did however deny the charge of theft. Likewise the petition mentioned that the defendant was unaware the property was stolen. This was done only to request a suspended sentence, not to deny the intent to commit the offense. Lastly the report also noted that the defendant did not contest the case and requested a lighter sentence. Supreme Court Decision No. 1936/1997

Likewise when person purchased a motorcycle. This was for an unusually low price of 5,000 Baht. He was in the end convicted under Section 357 after evidence showed they should have known it was stolen. Likewise in contrast, the buyer who was unaware of the item’s origin was acquitted.

The crime of mischief is addressed in Chapter 9 of the Thai criminal code. This part of the law covers acts that cause damage to property or agricultural resources.

Section 358: Penalizes damage to property, with imprisonment of up to three years or fines up to 6,000 Baht.

To commit mischief is the offense of property damage under Section 358 of the Criminal Code. This crime requires intent to damage another person’s property. In the West this would be malicious damage to property. In this case, the defendant cut down the injured party’s bamboo tree. The problem was that the bamboo had encroached on a public road to allow cows and buffalo to pass through. However since the defendant did not intend to cause damage, their actions were not considered an offense of property damage. Supreme Court Decision No. 1676/1977

Much like the above we will note that there was no intention to damage the property. The following is another case that has no intention. The term “agricultural crops” as defined in Section 359(4) of the Criminal Code. Therefore, kapok trees and cashew trees planted by the injured party, a farmer planted trees along the boundary line. In time subsequently uprooted and destroyed by the defendant as it damaged the fence. Supreme Court Decision No. 701/2505

Section 359 is defined in Section 358, is committed against certain types of property (cattle, engines, plants and beasts of burden) the offender shall face more severe penalties.

The above examples show necessity and not intent. This case however is where the The defendant used a knife to cut the victim’s pig’s leg, nearly severing it. This act made the defendant guilty of damaging livestock under Section 359(2) of the Criminal Code. Supreme Court Decision No. 2046/1972

These are the most common property crimes in Thailand. Should you have any questions then speak to us online or in person. We are a well known law firm in Thailand. Speak to our Thai criminal lawyer today if you need a criminal law firm in Thailand today.

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