Whoever takes away the property of another person, or which another person is a co-owner, dishonestly commits theft, and shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding three years and fined not exceeding sixty thousand Baht.
Section 334 is the basic theft provision: whoever dishonestly takes away property belonging to another person shall be punished with up to 3 years imprisonment and fine up to 60,000 Baht. This is the most commonly charged property offense in Thailand.
Section 335 covers aggravated theft (nighttime theft, theft during disasters, theft of religious property, etc.) with enhanced penalties of 1-5 years. Shoplifting, pickpocketing, and property theft all fall under these provisions.
The Supreme Court clarified that the offence of misappropriation under Section 352 requires the property to be tangible and capable of being possessed. The key distinction between theft (Section 334) and misappropriation (Section 352) lies in the 'possession test': theft requires taking property that is in the possession of another, while misappropriation occurs when property already in the offender's possession is dishonestly converted. Misappropriation is a compoundable offence that can be settled, whereas theft is a non-compoundable offence that must proceed regardless of the victim's wishes.
The defendant snatched a gold necklace from around the victim's neck while the victim was walking along a public road. The Supreme Court held that snatching property directly from a person's body constitutes robbery under Section 339, not mere theft under Section 334. The distinction lies in the use of force against the person, however slight. When property is taken by force directly from the victim's body or immediate possession, the element of violence or intimidation inherent in the act elevates the offense from theft to robbery. The forceful removal of the necklace from the victim's neck constitutes the requisite physical force.
The defendant took the complainant's motorcycle without permission and returned it the following day. The prosecution charged theft under Section 334. The Supreme Court held that theft requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Where the evidence shows the defendant intended only to temporarily use the property and return it, the essential element of intent to permanently deprive is not established, and a conviction for theft cannot stand. However, the Court noted that temporarily taking another's property without consent may constitute other offenses depending on the circumstances. The defendant was acquitted of theft.
The Supreme Court established that stealing an ATM card and subsequently withdrawing funds constitutes two separate offenses. The theft of the card is completed upon taking it (theft under Section 334), while using the stolen card to withdraw money is a separate offense of electronic card misuse under Section 269/5. Each offense has different criminal intent and involves different property.
The Supreme Court emphasized that 'dishonesty' (โดยทุจริต) under Section 1(1) is a subjective element that must exist at the time of the act. The defendant's state of mind and intention to obtain an advantage to which he was not legally entitled must be proven as existing at the moment of the criminal conduct, not before or after. This decision is a key authority on the mens rea requirement for property offences including theft, fraud, and misappropriation.
An employee stole 24 bottles of vegetable oil and 100 cans of fish from the employer's warehouse, loaded them onto a company pickup truck, and drove away. The Supreme Court found the defendant guilty of aggravated theft under Section 335(11) and Section 336 bis. The critical factor was the perpetrator's intention to use the vehicle to facilitate transporting stolen goods. This case established that even employees without specific custodial responsibilities for company goods can commit aggravated theft from an employer.
The defendant entered through an open bedroom door and stole property inside. The prosecution charged aggravated theft under Section 335(3) (theft by overcoming a barrier). The Supreme Court held that an open door is not a 'barrier for protecting persons or property' within the meaning of Section 335(3). A barrier must be something actually functioning as a protective obstacle. Since the door was open, the theft was simple theft under Section 334 only.
The defendant stole a buffalo and, when the owner chased him, the defendant drew a gun to prevent the owner from recovering the property. The Supreme Court held that where theft and the use of force or threat form a continuous act—the defendant used the weapon to facilitate escape with the stolen property—the offense is elevated to robbery under Section 339. Drawing a weapon to keep stolen property during flight constitutes a single continuous criminal act.
Grand Chamber decision establishing that electricity is 'property' capable of being stolen. The defendant illegally siphoned electrical current. The Supreme Court held that stealing electricity constitutes theft under Section 334 or aggravated theft under Section 335. This landmark ruling expanded the definition of 'property' in Thai criminal law to include intangible forms of energy.
Disclaimer: The English translation is unofficial and for informational purposes only. The authoritative text is in Thai as published in the Royal Thai Government Gazette (Ratchakitchanubeksa).ข้อสงวนสิทธิ์: คำแปลภาษาอังกฤษเป็นคำแปลอย่างไม่เป็นทางการ เพื่อวัตถุประสงค์ในการให้ข้อมูลเท่านั้น ข้อความที่เป็นทางการเป็นภาษาไทยตามที่ประกาศในราชกิจจานุเบกษา