Section 265: Forgery of a document of title or an official document

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 7212/2567 (2024)

   Forgery of a right document under Section 265 is a distinct, heavier offence from ordinary forgery under Section 264; where the prosecution pleads and seeks punishment only under Section 264 and 268, the conduct is treated as ordinary forgery carrying up to three years or a fine.

   The court noted the plaintiff had not alleged forgery of a right document or sought punishment under Sections 265 and 268, but only under Sections 264 and 268 for ordinary forgery and use, each carrying up to three years or a fine up to 60,000 baht, which fell within the district court's jurisdiction.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1496/2567 (2024)

   Deceptions practised on the same victim at different times and about different matters, each inducing a separate transfer of money, are separate completed offences. But where the defendant forges the document, uses it himself and obtains the money by that document, that sequence is one continuous intent and is punished as a single offence under the heaviest provision, the use of a forged official document.

   The defendant told the victim that he provided a service applying for visas, residence certificates and alien certificates and could apply to change her nationality to Thai. Counts 1.1 and 1.2 concerned deceptions in different months about different matters, each causing a separate transfer, so they were separate offences of fraud. The forgery, the use of the forged document and the fraud committed through it were a single continuous act. The defendant was therefore punished for two counts of fraud and one count of using a forged official document, the heaviest provision.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.