Section 272 — Trading in counterfeit goods
English translation
Whoever, in the course of trade or possessing for the purpose of trade, deals in goods that he has falsely made or falsely altered so as to differ from the truth, if the act does not constitute the offence of fraud, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding sixty 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 272 is the second trade offence, aimed at the goods themselves rather than the sales pitch. Its elements are: (1) trading, or possessing for the purpose of trade; (2) goods that the offender has falsely made or falsely altered so as to differ from the truth (in effect, passed-off or imitated goods); and (3) the residual clause that the act does not constitute fraud. Like Section 271 it is subsidiary to fraud under Section 341. It commonly overlaps with the Trademark Act where the imitation involves another's mark, and cases are frequently heard in the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, with the trademark offence often carrying the heavier penalty applied on conviction.
Why this matters in practice
Section 272 is the everyday tool against counterfeit and imitation goods offered for sale, from copied consumer products to fake spare parts. In practice it is charged alongside the Trademark Act, and where the trademark offence carries a heavier penalty the court punishes under that law; the Penal Code count still frames the conduct. Because the offences in Sections 271 to 275 are trade offences, prosecution often proceeds in the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, and confiscation of the counterfeit stock is standard. The residual fraud clause means that if buyers were deceived into paying and suffered loss in the fraud pattern, Section 341 may apply instead. Defences focus on whether the goods were truly imitations and on the sufficiency of the pleading. See fraud and scam laws in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 618/2568 (2025)
Trading in imitation goods under Section 272, together with related trade offences and the Trademark Act, is prosecuted in the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, where a party seeking compensation must be the injured party in the criminal case brought by the public prosecutor.
The defendant was prosecuted under Sections 272, 273, and 275 and the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 over imitation motorcycle chains, with confiscation sought. The case addressed who may claim compensation as an injured party in the prosecutor's criminal case.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8995/2560 (2017)
In a Section 272 prosecution combined with the Trademark Act, the court may only convict on conduct actually pleaded in the complaint; findings on acts not alleged in the indictment are improper.
The defendants were prosecuted under Sections 272 and 275 and the Trademark Act B.E. 2534. The court held that findings on using and offering goods bearing the plaintiff's mark, which were not stated in the complaint, were improper because they went beyond the indictment.
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 conduct does Section 272 cover?
It covers trading, or holding for trade, goods that the seller has falsely made or altered so they differ from the genuine article, where the act does not amount to fraud, with imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both.
Does Section 272 overlap with the Trademark Act?
Yes. Trading in imitation goods bearing another's mark often breaches both Section 272 and the Trademark Act, and where the trademark offence carries the heavier penalty the court punishes under that law, usually in the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court.