Misappropriation in Thailand

Section 352

This Section stipulates that any individual who dishonestly converts property belonging to another person or of which the other person is a co-owner to themselves or a third party commits misappropriation. The prescribed penalty for this offense is imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, a fine not exceeding six thousand Baht, or both. If the property comes into the offender’s possession due to delivery by mistake or as lost property, the punishment is halved.

– Theft or Misappropriation

The victim’s inability to retrieve the buffalo, as it remained among a herd on the mountain, designated for breeding, and only ceased wandering after being beyond reach, necessitates legal consideration. According to the law, it must be acknowledged that the injured party still maintains possession of the buffalo, as they have not relinquished control over it.

However, the defendant proceeded to shoot and kill the victim’s buffalo, subsequently butchering its meat without the victim’s consent, thereby dishonestly appropriating it. This action constitutes theft. Hence, the offense does not fall under misappropriation as per Section 352, paragraph two.

In the plaintiff’s pursuit to prosecute the defendant for embezzlement under Section 352, paragraph two, the court found the offense to be that of (theft). Therefore, the facts presented for consideration are not subject to the plaintiff’s desired prosecution. Consequently, the court is precluded from punishing the defendant under the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 192, paragraph three. Supreme Court Judgment No. 159/2512

– Cheating or Misappropriation

The defendant, employed by the victim with the responsibility to sell products and remit the proceeds to the victim, instead engaged in fraudulent activities. Rather than selling the goods to customers as instructed. The defendant pawned or sold them on consignment. This constitutes fraudulent misappropriation of property entrusted to the defendant by the victim, regardless of the defendant’s status as an employee.

Therefore, when the defendant unlawfully takes possession of the victim’s property and fraudulently appropriates it. They are guilty of embezzlement under Section 352, first paragraph of the Criminal Code.
The defendant’s assertion in their appeal that the victim’s employees receive sales commission and a percentage of sales on a monthly basis, rather than a fixed salary, does not exempt them from being considered an employee under the Civil and Commercial Code.

Consequently, this argument holds no relevance to the case, which should be adjudicated based on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 249, (Cheating Creditors) first paragraph, in conjunction with the Civil Procedure Code, Section 15. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4181/2542

– Misappropriation

In the present case, the defendant, acting in the capacity of a ticket clerk tasked with handling lottery tickets, unlawfully withheld proceeds from the sale of lottery tickets for personal gain. This action constitutes a straightforward offense of embezzlement under Section 352 of the Criminal Code, rather than under Section 353 or Section 354. See below as I added them there.

Given that multiple offenses with equivalent severity carry similar punishments, the court may elect to convict the defendant on one count only. Therefore, the court has the discretion to prosecute the defendant for any of the offenses committed, but not for multiple counts of the same offense. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1286/2505

– Neither Misappropriation or Theft but Civil

The act of depositing money with the intention of preserving it, followed by a request for a refund after more than a year, only to be informed by the depositor that the funds have been spent, constitutes a civil matter rather than a criminal offense of embezzlement. Supreme Court Judgment No. 233/2504

Section 353

This Section covers those individuals entrusted with managing another person’s property or co-owned property, who dishonestly contravene their duty. Thereby endangering the benefit of said property. Such individuals face imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, a fine not exceeding six thousand Baht, or both.

The victim in this case initially reported the defendant for embezzlement of 100,000 baht. However, during the investigation. The defendant used a photocopier to partially repay the victim’s debt of 50,000 baht. Subsequently, the defendant then failed to pay the remaining amount. The victim, in response, arranged for a negotiation between the defendant and the police. This resulting in the defendant paying 9,000 baht and issuing a check for 40,000 baht, after which the police officer released the defendant.

The victim’s failure in this case to object or inform the investigating officer of the negotiation’s outcome indicates a lack of interest in pursuing the criminal case against the defendant for fraud. This compromise here signifies a resolution between a criminal offense and a personal dispute. Despite the absence of written evidence. This behavior leads one to the suspension of the right to bring a criminal case under the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 39(2). Supreme Court Judgment 353/2532

Section 354

Likewise this Section increases the penalties if the offenses under Section 352 or Section 353 are committed by individuals in specific roles, such as executors or administrators of another person’s property under court order or will, or individuals in occupations or businesses of public trust. In such cases, the punishment may entail imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand Baht, or both.

According to the Criminal Code, offenses under Sections 352 and 353 carry a maximum imprisonment term of three years, falling within the jurisdiction of the district court for consideration and adjudication. However, offenses under Section 354 entail a maximum imprisonment term of five years, exceeding the district court’s jurisdiction.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleges that both defendants, acting as executors, fraudulently misappropriated the inheritance, requesting punishment under Sections 352, 353, and 354, which are interconnected offenses. Supreme Court Judgment 9313/2542

Section 355

Likewise addresses individuals who find valuable movable property hidden or buried with no owner claimant. Then proceed to convert such property for themselves or others. The prescribed penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding two thousand Baht, or both.

Section 356

Note that this states that offenses in this chapter are compoundable offenses,. Likewise indicating the possibility of resolution through mutual agreement between the parties involved.

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