Section 184 — Destroying evidence to help an offender
English translation
Whoever, in order to help another person to escape punishment or to receive a lighter punishment, damages, destroys, conceals, takes away, or renders lost or useless any evidence of the commission of an offence, 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 184 criminalizes tampering with evidence of another person's offence. Its elements are an act of damaging, destroying, concealing, taking away, or rendering lost or useless evidence of the commission of an offence, coupled with the specific purpose of helping the offender escape punishment or receive a lighter one. That purpose is an essential element: a charge that fails to allege it is defective. The section protects the integrity of criminal investigation and prosecution by targeting those who suppress proof of a crime, whether or not they committed the underlying offence. It works alongside the false-evidence offences and is distinct from concealing property ordered forfeited (Section 186) or seized or attached property (Section 187).
Why this matters in practice
This section reaches anyone who hides or destroys proof of someone else's crime, for example moving or concealing an object used in an offence to keep it from the police, and the penalty runs up to 5 years. The decisive element is purpose: the act must be done to help the offender escape or reduce punishment, and a complaint that does not spell out that purpose can be dismissed as defective. Because liability turns on that specific intent, both complainants and those accused should focus on what the conduct was actually meant to achieve. If you are involved in a case where evidence may have been tampered with, take advice on the intent and pleading requirements; you can consult a Thai criminal lawyer.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4195/2558 (2015)
A charge under Section 184 must allege that the accused acted in order to help another person escape punishment or receive a lighter one; omitting this element makes the charge incomplete and defective.
The Court held the indictment defective because it did not allege that the defendants acted to help another person escape or reduce punishment, an essential element of Section 184; without it the charge did not comply with the pleading requirement.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5811/2550 (2007)
Concealing an object that is evidence of another person's crime, such as a vehicle used in a killing, to prevent police from seizing it, is an offence under Section 184.
The defendant hid a motorcycle used by others as the vehicle in a premeditated killing, to keep police from seizing it as evidence. The trial court convicted under Section 184 with one year's imprisonment, later reduced on appeal.
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 must a Section 184 charge allege?
It must allege both the tampering with evidence and the purpose of helping another person escape punishment or receive a lighter one. Omitting that purpose makes the charge defective.
Does hiding an object used in a crime count?
Yes. Courts have convicted under Section 184 where a person concealed an object that was evidence of another's crime, such as a vehicle used in the offence, to keep it from the police.