Section 143 — Trading in influence
English translation
Whoever demands, accepts, or agrees to accept property or any other benefit for himself or another, in return for inducing or having induced an official, a member of a State legislative assembly, a member of a provincial assembly, or a member of a municipal assembly, by dishonest or unlawful means or by his own influence, to perform or omit to perform an act in his duty that is favorable or detrimental to any person, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding one hundred 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 143 is the trading-in-influence offence, sometimes called influence peddling or brokering a bribe. Its elements are: demanding, accepting, or agreeing to accept property or another benefit, for oneself or another, as consideration for inducing (or having induced) an official or a member of a State legislative, provincial, or municipal assembly, by dishonest or unlawful means or by one's own influence, to perform or omit a duty favorably or detrimentally to a person. It targets the middleman who trades on claimed access to public power, and is distinct from the official's own bribe-taking. The offence is complete on the demand or agreement to accept, and, as the case law makes clear, it does not matter whether the influence could in fact have been exerted. It is often charged alongside fraud under Section 341 where the influence claim was also a deception.
Why this matters in practice
This section reaches the fixer or broker who takes money to sway an official or elected member, not the official who is bribed. Exposure is up to five years. The single most important practical point, confirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court, is that the offence is complete even if the person could never actually have influenced the official; lack of real influence is not a defence, because the criminal act is the corrupt demand or acceptance itself. It is commonly paired with a fraud charge under Section 341, though a person who instigated the corrupt scheme may lose standing as an injured party. Given the overlap with anti-corruption law and fraud, anyone approached with such a proposition, or accused of making one, should get early advice; see fraud and scam laws in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2411/2562 (2019)
The offence under Section 143 is complete even if the accused could not in fact induce the official to act favorably; the inability to exert real influence does not negate an element of the offence.
Three defendants jointly demanded and received money from the injured party on a claim of influencing a senior judicial figure. The Supreme Court held that even though they could not actually influence the official, this did not make their conduct non-criminal for lack of an element, and convicted them under Section 143 read with Section 83, at two years' imprisonment each.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2077/2560 (2017)
A person who instigates the corrupt influence scheme, such as paying to have someone helped to pass an exam dishonestly, is not a lawful injured party and lacks standing to prosecute under Section 143.
The plaintiff had paid in connection with a scheme to help someone pass an examination dishonestly. The Supreme Court held that because the plaintiff had instigated the offence, he was not a lawful injured party under the procedural rules and had no standing to prosecute, though the case did proceed on a prima facie basis only as to Section 143.
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 for trading in influence under Section 143?
Imprisonment not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding 100,000 baht, or both.
Is it a defence that the broker could not really influence the official?
No. The Supreme Court has held that even if the accused could not actually influence the official, the offence is still complete because the corrupt demand or acceptance is the crime.
How is Section 143 different from bribing an official?
Section 143 targets the middleman who takes payment to influence an official or assembly member, not the official's own acceptance of a bribe.