Section 139 — Coercing an official
English translation
Whoever compels an official to perform an act contrary to his duty, or to refrain from performing an act within his duty, by using force or by threatening to use force, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding four years, or a fine not exceeding eighty thousand baht, or both.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 139 goes a step beyond the resistance offence in Section 138: instead of merely obstructing, the offender uses force or a threat of force to bend the official's conduct, either to make him act contrary to duty or to make him omit an act within his duty. Its elements are: an official, a coercive means (force or threat of force), and the specific object of compelling an unlawful act or an omission of duty. The heavier four-year ceiling reflects that the aim is to hijack the exercise of public authority, not just to impede it. Where the coercion is carried out with a weapon, by three or more persons, or with a firearm or explosive, Section 140 aggravates the penalty further.
Why this matters in practice
This is a more serious charge than obstruction, with exposure of up to four years, because it targets the corruption of official decision-making by threat or violence. Two elements are commonly contested. First, the coercion must genuinely aim to force an unlawful act or an omission of duty; protests or demands that do not actually compel a specific official act have been held not to meet the offence. Second, the official's task must be a lawful duty, so where the official was acting outside his legal authority the conviction can fail. Because the line between forceful protest and criminal coercion is fact sensitive, early advice is important; see criminal law in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1940/2561 (2018)
Where a speech contains nothing that compels officials to do an unlawful act or to omit a duty, there is no offence of coercing an official under Section 139.
The defendant was charged under Section 139 in connection with surrounding the NACC office. The Supreme Court found that nothing in his speech compelled the NACC commissioners to do anything he wanted, whether an unlawful act or an omission of duty, so the conduct did not constitute the offence.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1153/2556 (2013)
For Section 139 to apply, the official must be acting within his lawful authority; conduct directed at an act outside that authority does not support the offence.
The case concerned coercion connected to a local council resolution where there was no complaint from residents and the matter was found not to fall within the headman's legal authority to look after residents. The courts treated the scope of the official's lawful duty as central to whether the Section 139 offence was made out.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
What is the penalty under Section 139?
Imprisonment not exceeding four years, or a fine not exceeding 80,000 baht, or both.
How is Section 139 different from resisting an official under Section 138?
Section 138 punishes resisting or obstructing duty; Section 139 punishes using force or threats to compel an official to act against duty or to omit a duty, and carries a heavier penalty.
Is a protest that does not compel a specific act an offence?
Not necessarily. Where words or conduct do not actually compel the official to do or omit a specific act, the courts have found the offence not made out.