Section 141 — Tampering with an official seal
English translation
Whoever removes, damages, destroys, or renders useless a seal or mark that an official has affixed or made on any thing in the performance of his duty, in order to serve as evidence for the seizure, attachment, or safekeeping of that thing, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding forty 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 141 protects the integrity of an official seal or mark used to signify that a thing has been seized, attached, or placed under safekeeping. Its elements are: a seal or mark affixed or made by an official in the performance of duty, whose purpose is to evidence the seizure, attachment, or safekeeping of the thing, and conduct by the offender that removes, damages, destroys, or renders it useless. Two limits emerge clearly from the case law: the seal must have been affixed by a person who is genuinely an official acting under legal authority for the stated purpose, and the charge must plead that purpose; a charge that merely alleges destruction of a mark, without alleging it was placed to evidence seizure, attachment, or safekeeping, is defective. Section 142 addresses the related conduct of interfering with the seized property or document itself.
Why this matters in practice
The practical risk arises when someone removes boundary markers, breaks a seal, or otherwise interferes with an official mark placed to preserve seized or attached property. Exposure is up to two years. The defence often turns on two threshold questions the case law highlights: was the person who affixed the mark actually an official acting under legal authority for a seizure, attachment, or safekeeping purpose, and does the charge properly plead that the mark served that purpose. A mark placed for some other reason, or a defectively drafted charge, can defeat the prosecution. Because these disputes frequently overlap with civil property litigation, coordinated advice helps; see criminal law in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 17/2506 (1963)
A person surveying disputed land under a civil court order, who is not an official acting to preserve seized, attached, or safekept property, is not within the protection of Section 141.
Defendants were charged under Section 141 for removing boundary posts placed by a land official in making a disputed-area map under a civil court order. The Supreme Court held that such an official, acting to survey disputed land under a court order, was not an official whose mark was placed to evidence seizure, attachment, or safekeeping under Section 141.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 544/2505 (1962)
A charge that merely alleges destroying a seal stamped on a tree, without alleging it was affixed to evidence seizure, attachment, or safekeeping, does not make out the Section 141 offence and must be dismissed.
The charge alleged that the defendant destroyed a forest-reserve boundary seal stamped on a tree. The Supreme Court held that because the charge did not allege the seal was affixed in the performance of duty to evidence seizure, attachment, or safekeeping, it failed to state a Section 141 offence and had to be dismissed.
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 141?
Imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding 40,000 baht, or both.
Must the seal have been placed by an official for a seizure or safekeeping purpose?
Yes. The seal or mark must have been affixed by an official acting under legal authority to evidence the seizure, attachment, or safekeeping of the thing.
Can a poorly drafted charge fail under Section 141?
Yes. A charge that merely alleges destroying a mark, without pleading that it was placed to evidence seizure, attachment, or safekeeping, has been held defective and dismissed.