Section 163 — Postal officer tampering with mail
English translation
Whoever, being an official having a duty relating to the post, telegraph or telephone, commits any of the following acts wrongful to their duty:
(1) opens, or permits another person to open, a letter or other thing sent by post or telegraph;
(2) damages, destroys, causes to be lost, or permits another person to damage, destroy or cause to be lost, a letter or other thing;
(3) detains, misroutes, or delivers to a person known not to be the proper recipient, a letter or other thing;
(4) discloses a message sent by post, telegraph or telephone,
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 163 protects the confidentiality and safe carriage of communications handled by State postal and telecommunications officers. Its elements are: (1) the actor is an official with a duty relating to the post, telegraph or telephone; and (2) they wrongfully commit one of the four listed acts, covering interception, destruction or loss, detention or misdelivery, and disclosure of contents. The offence is an official-specific and aggravated counterpart to the general offence of interfering with correspondence, reflecting the trust placed in postal staff. In practice it commonly appears alongside Section 157, embezzlement offences such as Section 147 where the officer also misappropriates fees, and the Postal Act, and it may be charged by specific limb such as (3) for detaining or misrouting mail.
Why this matters in practice
Exposure runs up to five years, and because this is a malfeasance offence against the State it cannot be settled with an aggrieved sender or recipient. Real cases typically involve a postal officer who detains or withholds letters, often coupled with embezzlement of postal fees, so the practical exposure can multiply when several counts are stacked and sentenced separately. A defence turns on whether the accused held the relevant postal duty and whether the handling was genuinely wrongful rather than an ordinary sorting or delivery error. If you believe mail is being intercepted or withheld by an officer, or you are an officer under investigation, seek legal advice promptly.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2395/2527 (1984)
A postal officer who detains letters entrusted to the post office contrary to duty, together with misappropriating the related fees, is liable for a postal-office offence; the withholding of mail falls within the conduct penalised by Section 163.
The defendant, a postal officer, was charged with detaining 32 letters that members of the public had deposited for posting, along with misappropriating collected fees. He ultimately pleaded guilty. The case illustrates limb (3) conduct, wrongful detention of mail, typically prosecuted together with embezzlement provisions.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Who does Section 163 apply to?
It applies only to an official who has a duty relating to the post, telegraph or telephone. A private person who interferes with someone else's mail is dealt with under other provisions.
Is detaining or withholding letters an offence under Section 163?
Yes. Detaining, misrouting or delivering mail to a person known not to be the proper recipient falls under limb (3), and such conduct has led to convictions, often alongside embezzlement of postal fees.