Section 162 — Official false certification in documents
English translation
Whoever, being an official having the duty to make documents, receive documents or fill in statements in documents, does any of the following acts in the performance of duty:
(1) falsely certifies as evidence that they have done any act, or that any act has been done in their presence;
(2) certifies as evidence that a statement has been given when no such statement was given;
(3) omits to record a statement that they have the duty to record, or records a change to such a statement; or
(4) falsely certifies as evidence a fact that the document is intended to prove,
shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding seven years and a fine not exceeding one hundred and forty 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 162 targets false certification in official documents, as distinct from physically forging one under Section 161. Its elements are: (1) the actor is an official with a duty to make, receive or complete documents; and (2) in performing that duty they commit one of the four listed acts, all of which turn on certifying or recording something untrue, or omitting a required entry. The gravamen is the falsity of the content the officer records or certifies, not the alteration of the document's form. It is very frequently charged with Section 157, and where the same conduct offends several provisions the court sentences under the heaviest, which is usually Section 157. Charges are commonly framed by reference to specific limbs, most often (1) and (4).
Why this matters in practice
Maximum exposure is seven years plus a mandatory fine, and as a malfeasance offence it cannot be settled privately. A recurring defence question is whether the certified fact was actually false and whether the officer had the duty to record it: the Supreme Court has held, for example, that merely approving a loan and payment for a project that was never carried out does not by itself amount to a false certification under limbs (1) and (4), because those limbs require a false statement of fact within the document. Since these counts almost always travel with Section 157, defence strategy centres on breaking the factual link between the officer's entry and any dishonesty. Early legal advice is important once an anti-corruption inquiry is opened.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2483/2565 (2022)
Merely approving a loan under a borrowing agreement and approving payment on a withdrawal request for a project that was never actually carried out does not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 162(1) and (4), which require a false certification of fact within the document.
In a local-government budget case, the Court held that approving a loan and a payment for a project that was never performed did not, on its own, satisfy Section 162(1) and (4), because those limbs require a false certification of fact in the document itself. The distinction matters where the same conduct is also charged under Section 157.
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 difference between Section 161 and Section 162?
Section 161 punishes physically forging a document, while Section 162 punishes an official who records or certifies false content in a document. The wrongdoing in 162 is the false content, not the altered form.
Does approving a payment for an unperformed project breach Section 162?
The Supreme Court has held that merely approving a loan and payment for a project that was never carried out does not by itself amount to false certification under limbs (1) and (4), which require a false statement of fact in the document.