Section 172 — False report of a criminal offence
English translation
Whoever makes a false statement concerning a criminal offence to a public prosecutor, a case prosecutor, an inquiry official or an official having the power to investigate criminal cases, which may cause damage to another person or to the public, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding forty 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 172 is the specific false-report offence for criminal matters, sitting between the general false-statement offence in Section 137 and the more serious framing offences in Sections 173 and 174. Its elements are: (1) a false statement concerning a criminal offence; (2) made to a public prosecutor, case prosecutor, inquiry official or official empowered to investigate criminal cases; and (3) which may cause damage to another or the public. The falsity and the criminal-justice recipient distinguish it from Section 137, while the aggravated framing offence under Section 174, especially its second paragraph read with Section 181, applies where the false report is made to have someone punished, with far heavier penalties for framing them for grave offences. Where the same conduct also defames, defamation counts under Sections 326 or 328 may be added.
Why this matters in practice
Exposure is up to two years, but the real risk is escalation: a false criminal complaint can pull in the framing offences under Sections 173 and 174, and the second paragraph of Section 174 read with Section 181 carries much heavier penalties where the false report aims to have someone punished for a grave crime. The Supreme Court has distinguished simple false reporting under Section 172 from that aggravated framing, so the exact allegation and intent matter greatly. A recurring defence is that the report was made in good faith on a genuine belief that an offence occurred. Filing, or defending against, a criminal complaint you suspect is false is high-stakes, so understand how false-report and fraud allegations interact and take legal advice early.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1575/2563 (2020)
Conduct may constitute only the offence of making a false statement about a criminal offence to an inquiry official or investigating officer under Section 172, and not the aggravated offence under Section 174 paragraph two and Section 181(2) of falsely reporting a crime to frame a person for an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment, which requires that heightened framing intent.
The Court distinguished the ordinary false-report offence under Section 172 from the aggravated framing offence under Section 174 paragraph two read with Section 181(2). It held the conduct fell within Section 172 only, because the aggravated offence requires an intent to have the person punished for a very serious offence, illustrating how charge selection turns on the reporter's intent.
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 is Section 172 different from the aggravated framing offence?
Section 172 punishes a false statement about a crime that may cause damage. The Supreme Court has held that this alone does not amount to the aggravated framing offence under Section 174 paragraph two read with Section 181, which requires an intent to have someone punished for a grave offence.
Is a good-faith mistaken report an offence under Section 172?
The offence requires a false statement. A report made in good faith on a genuine belief that an offence occurred is a common line of defence, since the section targets knowingly false statements about a crime.