Section 149 — Bribery of an official (taking a bribe)
English translation
Whoever, being an official, a member of a State legislative assembly, a member of a provincial assembly or a member of a municipal assembly, wrongfully demands, accepts or agrees to accept property or any other benefit for himself or for another, in order to do or not to do any act in his office, whether or not such act is within his duty, shall be punished with imprisonment from five to twenty years or imprisonment for life, and a fine from one hundred thousand to four hundred thousand baht, or death.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 149 is the passive-bribery offence, the mirror of Section 144 which punishes the giver. Its elements are (1) being an official or a legislative, provincial or municipal council member, (2) wrongfully demanding, accepting or agreeing to accept property or a benefit for oneself or another, (3) in order to do or omit an act of office. Crucially, liability attaches whether or not the act paid for is itself within the official's duty; the wrong lies in trading the office. It is distinct from Section 148 (coercion by abuse of power) and from Section 150 (acting on a benefit taken before appointment). Where the specific elements of Section 149 are not made out, the conduct may still be punished under the general malfeasance provision, Section 157.
Why this matters in practice
This is a top-tier corruption offence: minimum five years, up to death, non-compoundable, and typically handled by the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the anti-corruption courts. Returning the money does not extinguish the offence. Because the trial court may find the specific bribery elements unproven and fall back to Section 157, which carries a much lighter penalty, the charge that ultimately sticks is often the decisive question. Where an official conditions each person's dealing on a separate payment, courts treat each as a separate offence, multiplying the counts. Anyone under investigation should get Thai criminal law advice before making statements.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 761/2566 (2023)
Where an official conditions each individual's contract renewal on that individual paying, the intent is to produce a separate result against each person, so the acts are several distinct offences rather than one.
Officials demanded payment from individual contract workers as a condition of renewing each person's employment. The Supreme Court held that treating each worker separately showed an intent to produce a distinct result for each, making the conduct several offences under Sections 149 and 157.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4789/2565 (2022)
Section 149 requires a wrongful demand or acceptance connected to an act of office; where those specific elements are not established, the conduct may be punished only under the general malfeasance provision, Section 157.
The trial court convicted under Section 149, but on appeal the conviction was changed to Section 157 as the general malfeasance provision. The case illustrates that where the specific bribery elements of Section 149 are not sustained, Section 157 operates as the residual offence.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Does it matter if the act paid for was lawful?
No. Section 149 applies whether or not the act is within the official's duty; the offence is trading the office for a benefit.
What if the bribery elements are not fully proven?
The court may fall back to the general malfeasance offence under Section 157, which carries a lighter penalty than Section 149.
Can several bribery acts be separate offences?
Yes. Where an official conditions each person's matter on a separate payment, the courts treat each as a distinct offence.