Section 174 — Aggravated false accusation to officials
English translation
If the giving of information under Section 172 or Section 173 is done in order to falsely cause any person to be subjected to a measure for safety, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years and a fine not exceeding sixty thousand Baht.
If the giving of information under the first paragraph is done in order to falsely cause any person to be punished or to be more severely punished, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years and a fine not exceeding one 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 174 is the aggravated form of the false-reporting offences in Sections 172 and 173. It adds a heightened penalty where the false report is made with a malicious purpose: to have the target subjected to a measure for safety, or to have the target punished or punished more severely. The prosecution must prove the underlying false report plus this specific wrongful intent. Where the accusation concerns an offence carrying imprisonment of three years or more, or death or life imprisonment, the penalty is further increased under Section 181. This provision sits within the Title on offences against judicial officials, targeting the abuse of the criminal-complaint process.
Why this matters in practice
Exposure under Section 174 is serious because the malicious-intent element pushes the penalty well above an ordinary false report, and Section 181 can raise it further when the fabricated accusation concerns a grave offence. The pivotal battleground is intent: courts have acquitted where the complainant genuinely believed a crime occurred and merely left the charging decision to the inquiry official, rather than acting to frame the target. If you are accused, or considering a complaint under this section, get advice on the intent evidence early; you can consult a Thai criminal lawyer before filing.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5151/2563 (2020)
Reporting to an inquiry official based on a genuine belief, where the decision whether to charge rests with the official rather than flowing directly from the reporter's act, is not the offence of false reporting.
The defendant reported to the inquiry official based on events that led him to understand the plaintiff should be prosecuted. Because the decision to lay a charge lay with the inquiry official and did not arise directly from the defendant's act, the Court held the conduct was not false reporting.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1575/2563 (2020)
Where the conduct amounts only to giving a false statement to an inquiry official under Section 172, it does not become the aggravated offence under Section 174 paragraph two with Section 181(2) unless the accusation is of an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment.
The Court distinguished a plain false statement to an inquiry official under Section 172 from the aggravated framing offence. The conduct did not reach Section 174 paragraph two read with Section 181(2), which is reserved for accusations of offences carrying death or life imprisonment.
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 172 and Section 174?
Section 172 covers a false report to an official; Section 174 applies the heavier penalty when that false report is made with intent to frame the target into punishment or a safety measure.
What is the penalty under Section 174?
Up to 3 years and a 60,000 Baht fine if the aim is a safety measure; up to 5 years and a 100,000 Baht fine if the aim is punishment or a heavier punishment, and higher again under Section 181 for grave accusations.
Is it an offence if I honestly believed a crime happened?
Section 174 requires intent to frame. Courts have acquitted where the complainant genuinely believed an offence occurred and left the charging decision to the inquiry official.