Section 224: Capital-sum bar on factual appeals

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4325/2566 (2023)

   In deciding whether an appeal on questions of fact is barred by the 50,000 baht threshold in section 224 paragraph one, the values of the items an appellant challenges may be taken together where the issues they raise are not truly separable. In a forfeiture case under the Anti Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542, although whether each item of property is connected with the offence can be considered item by item, every item turns on the same principal question whether the predicate offence alleged was committed; and where an objector claims to be the true owner or a transferee in good faith under section 50 paragraph one of that Act, the further question whether that objector is or has been connected with the offender is common to all of the objector's items. The threshold is therefore measured against the combined value of that objector's contested items. This is not a general rule that whatever an appellant challenges is always aggregated.

   The applicant sought forfeiture of the second objector's property to the State. One of the three items in that objector's appeal was worth only about 32,484 baht, and the Court of Appeal treated the appeal on that item as barred by the 50,000 baht threshold in section 224 paragraph one. The Supreme Court disagreed. Although whether each item was connected with the offence could be examined item by item, all of them turned on the same principal question whether the predicate offence had been committed, and for an objector claiming to be the true owner or a good faith transferee under section 50 paragraph one of the Anti Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 there was the further common question whether that objector was or had been connected with the offender. The three items, worth about 1,879,495 baht together, were therefore taken as a whole, the threshold was exceeded, and the Court of Appeal had to decide the appeal on that item as well.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 5551/2567 (2024)

   Where a special statute does not lay down its own procedure for obtaining permission to appeal on the facts, the procedure in Section 224 (final paragraph) applies by analogy: the appellant must file a motion together with the appeal asking the judge who tried or signed the judgment to permit the factual appeal, and failing to do so defeats it.

   Because the special Kwaeng Court statute contained no specific rule for obtaining permission to appeal on the facts, the Supreme Court applied Section 224 (final paragraph) of this Code by analogy: the appellant had to file a motion with the appeal asking the trial judge to permit the factual appeal. Having failed to file such a motion, the appellant could not proceed on the facts.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.