Section 46: Civil judgment bound by criminal facts

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3664/2568 (2025)

   Section 46 does one thing: in giving judgment on the civil part the court must take the facts as they appear in the criminal judgment. It does not fix the legal consequence of those facts. That is section 47 paragraph one, under which the judgment on the civil part must follow the law governing a person's civil liability, without regard to whether the defendant has been convicted. So an acquittal does not dispose of the civil claim: where the facts found in the criminal case establish a contractual default, the defendant is liable in contract even though the prosecution has failed.

   The buyer ordered 5,000 sets of sleepwear through the seller's Facebook page and transferred 135,000 baht in full. The seller did not deliver, and was prosecuted for fraud on the public under Penal Code section 343 with section 341 and under section 14(1) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550, with a claim for return of the money. The trial court acquitted; the Court of Appeal reversed, convicted under section 343 paragraph one and ordered the money returned. The Supreme Court restored the acquittal: the page was headed as opening pre-orders for a new lot, and the parties' own chat showed the buyer knew at the time that the seller did not yet hold the goods, so there was no false statement or concealment and neither fraud nor entry of false computer data was made out. On the civil part the Court held that although section 46 requires it to take the facts from the criminal judgment, those facts were that the buyer had paid 135,000 baht in full and the seller had failed to deliver within the agreed time, so the seller was in breach of contract; and because section 47 paragraph one requires the civil judgment to follow the law of civil liability without regard to conviction, the seller had to return the 135,000 baht notwithstanding the acquittal.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 2630/2567 (2024)

   Where a civil claim depends on the criminal wrong charged, it is a civil case connected with a criminal one and the court must follow the criminal judgment's facts under Section 46.

   The plaintiff's civil claim rested on the defendant's alleged offences against officials and forgery, making it a civil case connected with a criminal one. The Court held that under Section 46 it had to take the facts as found in the criminal judgment when deciding the civil part.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 788/2567 (2024)

   A judgment debtor who says the civil judgment against him is irregular because it did not follow the facts found in a later criminal judgment, relying on section 46 read with Civil Procedure Code section 27, does not obtain revocation of execution where the application is decided on another ground. Here the Court disposed of it under the bankruptcy legislation and never ruled on the section 46 point.

   The defendant applied to revoke the writ of execution, arguing among other things that the judgment in the case was irregular because it had not followed the facts in a later criminal judgment convicting the plaintiff of giving false testimony, contrary to section 46 read with Civil Procedure Code section 27. The Supreme Court decided the application on entirely different grounds: the plaintiff, a bankrupt, had applied for execution in line with a resolution of the creditors' meeting and with the official receiver's acquiescence, so the seizure counted as helping the official receiver under section 79 of the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 and there was no ground to revoke it. The section 46 argument was never adjudicated.

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