Whoever commits theft: (1) at night time; (2) at or in the vicinity of any place where there is a conflagration, explosion, flood, or any accident to a train or conveyance used by the public, or any other similar calamity; (3) by damaging any obstruction intended for the protection of person or property, or by passing through such obstruction in any manner; (4) by entering through an opening not intended for entrance, or through an opening made available by an accomplice; (5) by disguising oneself as another person, masking face, or making oneself unrecognizable; (6) by falsely assuming to be an official; (7) with arms, or jointly with another person; (8) in a dwelling house, government office or place provided for public service which one has entered without permission, or in which one has concealed oneself, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to five years and fined of twenty thousand to one hundred thousand Baht.
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.
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