Article 342: Aggravated fraud
Statutory text (Thai original)
ถ้าในการกระทำความผิดฐานฉ้อโกง ผู้กระทำ (๑) แสดงตนเป็นคนอื่น หรือ (๒) อาศัยความเบาปัญญาของผู้ถูกหลอกลวงซึ่งเป็นเด็ก หรืออาศัยความอ่อนแอแห่งจิตของผู้ถูกหลอกลวง ผู้กระทำต้องระวางโทษจำคุกไม่เกินห้าปี หรือปรับไม่เกินหนึ่งแสนบาท หรือทั้งจำทั้งปรับ หมายเหตุ: [อัตราโทษ แก้ไขเพิ่มเติมโดยมาตรา ๔ แห่งพระราชบัญญัติแก้ไขเพิ่มเติมประมวลกฎหมายอาญา (ฉบับที่ ๒๖) พ.ศ. ๒๕๖๐]
English translation
Where, in committing the offence of cheating and fraud, the offender:
(1) impersonates another person; or
(2) takes advantage of the lack of intelligence of the person deceived, being a child, or of the weakness of mind of the person deceived,the offender shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand baht, or both.
ThaiLawOnline translation, written from the Thai original and verified
Firm annotation
Section 342 is an aggravated form of the base fraud offence under Section 341. It applies where the fraud is carried out by impersonating another person, or by exploiting a particularly vulnerable victim, namely a child whose feeble-mindedness is taken advantage of, or a person whose mental weakness is exploited. Establishing the offence requires proving the elements of Section 341 plus one of these aggravating circumstances. The impersonation limb frequently appears in identity-based scams, and it is also the element that separates ordinary fraud from public fraud committed by impersonation. The heavier penalty, up to five years, reflects the added culpability of deceit through a false identity or the targeting of the vulnerable.
Why this matters in practice
Exposure rises to five years compared with three years for basic fraud, so charging the aggravated form materially changes sentencing risk. As with the base offence, fraud under Section 342 falls within the compoundable range under Section 348, so a genuine settlement may end the case; however, if the same facts are charged as public fraud, that is a state offence and is not compoundable. A key line of defence is contesting the aggravating element itself, for example whether the accused genuinely impersonated another person or whether the victim's vulnerability was actually exploited. See our guide to fraud and scam laws in Thailand.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 89/2567 (2024)
Where unauthorised access to protected computer data, altering another's computer data, entering false data into a computer system, fraud by impersonation under Section 342 (1), forgery and the use of a forged document are all directed at the single aim of deceiving the victim into transferring the price of goods, they are one act breaching several laws under Section 90, not several offences under Section 91. Punishment then follows the heaviest provision, which here was section 9 of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550.
Although the charge set the acts out separately and asked for punishment under Section 91, and the defendant pleaded guilty to all of them, the Supreme Court held that he and his associates had a single aim: to deceive the third injured person into transferring the price of the goods ordered. The computer offences, the fraud by impersonation under Section 342 (1), the forgery and the use of the forged document were linked and formed one act breaching several laws under Section 90. Punishment was imposed under section 9 of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 as the heaviest provision, not under Section 342 (1). The prosecution's argument that the sentence should have been heavier was not considered, since it had not been raised on appeal.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4920/2567 (2024)
A person who provides a bank account that helps offenders benefit from a public fraud committed by impersonation can be liable as a supporter of that offence.
The court found the defendant's account was used to help offenders benefit before and during a joint public fraud by impersonation, making the defendant a supporter of the offence, which was charged with reference to the impersonation element in Section 342.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 72 Supreme Court decisions (1957 to 2025)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Decision 37/2565 (2022)
- Decision 38/2565 (2022)
- Decision 4893-4895/2565 (2022)
- Decision 20/2546 (2003)
- Decision 3309/2543 (2000)
- Decision 3839/2526 (1983)
- Decision 115/2511 (1968)
- Decision 1230/2502 (1959)
Cette liste est sélectionnée automatiquement, en privilégiant les jugements qui reposent sur cet article plutôt que sur ceux qui se contentent de le citer lors du prononcé de la peine. Elle n'a pas encore été examinée par le cabinet.
Le plus souvent cité aux côtés de
- Article 341 67
- Article 83 47
- Article 91 39
- Article 90 34
- Article 78 34
- Article 268 30
Sections qui apparaissent le plus souvent dans les mêmes jugements que celui-ci. Le chiffre correspond au nombre de décisions.
Calculé sur l'ensemble du corpus de 83 652 décisions de la Cour suprême du cabinet, de 1921 à 2026. Le décompte est exhaustif ; la plage d'années indiquée élimine les valeurs aberrantes rares afin de refléter la répartition réelle des citations. Ces chiffres sont calculés par nos soins et ne constituent pas des statistiques officielles de la Cour. Comment nous les comptons et ce que nous avons mesuré
Foire aux questions
Qu’est-ce qui rend la fraude aggravée en vertu de l’article 342 ?
La fraude est aggravée lorsqu'elle est commise en usurpant l'identité d'une autre personne, ou en exploitant la faiblesse d'esprit d'une victime enfant ou la fragilité mentale de la personne trompée.
Quelle est la peine encourue pour fraude aggravée ?
L'article 342 prévoit une peine d'emprisonnement n'excédant pas cinq ans, ou une amende n'excédant pas cent mille bahts, ou les deux, supérieures à celles prévues pour la fraude de base en vertu de l'article 341.
La fraude aggravée est-elle susceptible de faire l'objet d'une transaction pénale ?
Yes. Section 348 makes the offences in the fraud chapter compoundable except public fraud under Section 343, so a Section 342 charge can be settled. But if the same facts are charged as public fraud under Section 343, that is a State offence and is not compoundable.
Guides connexes sur ThaiLawOnline
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Penal Code, s. 342 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 342. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-342/ (accessed 30 août 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.อ. มาตรา 342 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-342/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-342/"><p>Where, in committing the offence of cheating and fraud, the offender: (1) impersonates another person; or (2) takes advantage of the lack of intelligence of the person deceived, being a child, or of the weakness of mind of the person deceived, the offender shall be…</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 342 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-342/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.