Section 173 — False report that a crime occurred
English translation
Whoever, knowing that no offence has been committed, reports to an inquiry official or to an official having the power to investigate criminal cases that an offence has been committed shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years and a fine not exceeding sixty 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 173 is a specific and heavier form of false criminal reporting than Section 172. Its elements are: (1) the actor knows that no offence has in fact been committed; and (2) nevertheless reports to an inquiry official or official empowered to investigate crime that an offence has been committed. The distinguishing feature is that there was no real crime at all, and the reporter knows this, which sets it apart from Section 172, where a statement about an actual matter is false. The Supreme Court has treated Section 173 as a specific provision that displaces the general false-statement offence in Section 137, so once Section 173 applies there is no need to also apply Section 137. Where the reported facts, if true, would not constitute a crime, related counts such as Section 172 may fall away.
Why this matters in practice
With a ceiling of three years plus a mandatory fine, fabricating a crime that never happened is treated more seriously than an ordinary false report, and it commonly arises when someone reports a fictitious theft or offence to gain an advantage. A key defence is that the reporter genuinely believed an offence had occurred: the Supreme Court has held that where a person reports events as they understood them and the decision whether to charge rests with the inquiry official, the report is not a false report, because the outcome does not flow directly from the reporter's act. Because Section 173 is a specific provision, charging it usually excludes the general offence under Section 137. If you are accused of filing a fabricated complaint, or believe someone has done so against you, get legal advice on intent and knowledge, which are decisive.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 981/2561 (2018)
Section 173 is a specific provision, so when conduct falls under it there is no need to also apply the general false-statement offence in Section 137; and where no actual theft offence occurred, the conduct is likewise not an offence under Section 172.
The Court held that Section 173, as a specific provision, displaces the general false-statement offence in Section 137, so both need not be applied together. Because no actual theft had occurred, the conduct also did not fall under Section 172. The decision clarifies the relationship between Sections 173, 172 and 137.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5151/2563 (2020)
Where a person reports events to an inquiry official as they genuinely understood them, and it is the official's function, not the reporter's act, to decide whether to bring a charge, the report is not a false report, because the consequence does not arise directly from the reporter's conduct.
The defendant reported to an inquiry official based on events that led him to believe the complainant should be prosecuted. The Court reasoned that whether to lay a charge was for the official to decide, not a direct result of the defendant's report, so the conduct was not a false report. This supports a good-faith-belief defence to Section 173.
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 173 different from Section 172?
Section 173 applies where no offence occurred at all and the reporter knows it, whereas Section 172 applies where a statement about a criminal matter is false. Section 173 is heavier, up to three years and a fine.
Does reporting in good faith count as a false report?
No. The Supreme Court has held that where a person reports events as they genuinely understood them and the decision to charge rests with the inquiry official, the report is not a false report, because the outcome does not flow directly from the reporter's act.