{"id":3223,"date":"2026-08-05T07:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-08-05T00:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/facebook-marketplace-fraud-thailand-supreme-court-736-2569\/"},"modified":"2026-08-05T07:30:36","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T00:30:36","slug":"facebook-marketplace-fraud-thailand-supreme-court-736-2569","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/fr\/facebook-marketplace-fraud-thailand-supreme-court-736-2569\/","title":{"rendered":"Facebook Marketplace Fraud in Thailand: Supreme Court Case 736\/2569"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Facebook Marketplace listing for goods you do not have is not a private lie between two people. It is fraud on the public. Supreme Court Decision (Dika) No. 736\/2569 settles four points for anyone buying or selling online in Thailand. The listing falls under Section 343 of the Penal Code, not the milder Section 341. The same post is a separate offence under Section 14(1) of the Computer Crime Act. Restitution above the victim’s actual loss is what earns a suspended sentence. And a juvenile record can be used against the same person once they are tried as an adult.<\/em><\/p>\n

The four holdings at a glance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Issue<\/th>\nWhat Dika 736\/2569 holds<\/th>\nWhy it matters<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Which fraud section applies to an online listing<\/td>\nPenal Code Section 343 (fraud on the public), not Section 341<\/td>\nHigher penalty, and Section 343 is not compoundable<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Computer Crime Act exposure<\/td>\nThe listing is also false computer data under Section 14(1)<\/td>\nTwo convictions from one post<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Suspended sentence<\/td>\nRestitution above the loss is what tips the balance<\/td>\nPartial repayment is not enough<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Juvenile record<\/td>\nSection 84 of the Juvenile and Family Court Act protects the child only inside the juvenile forum<\/td>\nThe record is fully admissible in ordinary criminal court<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

A public listing is public fraud: Penal Code Section 343<\/h2>\n

Most fraud prosecutions in Thailand start with Section 341 of the Penal Code<\/strong>. That is ordinary fraud: dishonestly deceiving another person to obtain property. It carries up to three years in prison, a fine of up to 60,000 baht, or both.<\/p>\n

Section 343<\/strong> is the aggravated form. It applies where the deception is held out to the general public. The penalty rises to five years, a fine of up to 100,000 baht, or both.<\/p>\n

Here is the part people miss. A Marketplace listing is addressed to everyone who scrolls past it. It does not become a private transaction just because one buyer happened to answer. The court in Dika 736\/2569 treated the public character of the advertisement as decisive, not the number of people who lost money.<\/p>\n

That distinction has a sharp practical edge. Under Section 348, most fraud offences in this chapter are compoundable, which means the case can be settled and withdrawn. Section 343 is not on that list. So the seller who assumes a refund will make the file disappear is working from the wrong section.<\/p>\n

Section 341 compared with Section 343<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nSection 341<\/th>\nSection 343<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Who is deceived<\/td>\nAn identified person<\/td>\nThe public at large<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Maximum prison term<\/td>\n3 years<\/td>\n5 years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Maximum fine<\/td>\n60,000 baht<\/td>\n100,000 baht<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Compoundable under Section 348<\/td>\nYes<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Typical fact pattern after 736\/2569<\/td>\nOne-to-one deal, private message, known counterparty<\/td>\nMarketplace post, public group, open advertisement<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The same post is a Computer Crime Act offence: Section 14(1)<\/h2>\n

Section 14(1) of the Computer Crime Act punishes dishonestly entering false computer data into a computer system in a way that causes damage. It carries up to five years, a fine of up to 100,000 baht, or both.<\/p>\n

The 2017 amendment deliberately narrowed Section 14(1). It was pulled away from defamation and pointed at exactly this: online fraud, phishing and fake commercial offers. A listing for stock that does not exist sits in the centre of that target.<\/p>\n

So one Facebook post produces two offences. The deception of the buyer is the Penal Code count. Publishing the false data is the Computer Crime Act count. We explain how Thai prosecutors combine online charges in our guide to charge stacking under the Computer Crime Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In our experience, foreign defendants underestimate this badly. They picture a consumer dispute over a phone that never shipped. What they are actually facing is a non-compoundable public fraud charge stacked with a computer offence.<\/p>\n

Restitution above the loss is what earns a suspended sentence<\/h2>\n

Thai courts can suspend a prison term under Section 56 of the Penal Code<\/strong>. Whether they do is discretionary, and remorse is the hinge.<\/p>\n

Dika 736\/2569 puts a number on remorse. Paying back what you took is treated as the bare minimum. Paying more<\/em> than the victim lost is what reads as genuine contrition rather than damage control.<\/p>\n

Three practical rules follow from that:<\/p>\n