Section 151 — Dishonest use of office over property
English translation
Whoever, being an official having the duty to buy, make, manage or maintain any property, dishonestly exercises the power of his office in a manner injurious to the State, a municipality, a sanitary district or the owner of such property, 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.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 151 sits beside the peculation offence in Section 147 but targets a different wrong. Section 147 punishes misappropriating the property; Section 151 punishes the dishonest exercise of official power over property in a way that causes loss, even without the official taking the property for himself. Its elements are (1) being an official (2) with the duty to buy, make, manage or maintain property, (3) dishonestly exercising the power of the office, (4) causing injury to the State, a municipality, a sanitary district or the owner. The duty over the property is essential; a charge that fails to establish that direct duty does not make out the offence. The two sections are frequently charged together and, on the same facts, are treated as a single act punished under the heavier provision.
Why this matters in practice
This is a serious corruption offence, minimum five years up to life, non-compoundable and handled through the anti-corruption process. The central pleading point is duty: the indictment must show the accused had a direct duty to buy, make, manage or maintain the property, and a failure to establish that duty is a real line of defence. Because the offence carries a life-imprisonment ceiling, the applicable limitation period is the longest tier. Where the same conduct fits both this section and Section 147, expect a single-act analysis with sentencing under the heavier count.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 52/2567 (2024)
An indictment that shows the official had a direct duty to manage budget funds belonging to a public body sufficiently pleads the duty element of Section 151.
The Supreme Court held the charge was intelligible in showing that the first defendant had a direct duty to manage budget funds of a sub-district administrative organization for a cultural project, which is an element of the offence under Section 151.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
How does Section 151 differ from official embezzlement under Section 147?
Section 147 punishes misappropriating the property; Section 151 punishes dishonestly using official power over property to cause loss, even without taking it.
Is duty over the property required?
Yes. The prosecution must show the official had a direct duty to buy, make, manage or maintain the property; without it, the offence is not made out.