Section 334: Theft of property
Statutory text (Thai original)
ผู้ใดเอาทรัพย์ของผู้อื่น หรือที่ผู้อื่นเป็นเจ้าของรวมอยู่ด้วยไปโดยทุจริต ผู้นั้นกระทำความผิดฐานลักทรัพย์ ต้องระวางโทษจำคุกไม่เกินสามปี และปรับไม่เกินหกหมื่นบาท หมายเหตุ: [อัตราโทษ แก้ไขเพิ่มเติมโดยมาตรา ๔ แห่งพระราชบัญญัติแก้ไขเพิ่มเติมประมวลกฎหมายอาญา (ฉบับที่ ๒๖) พ.ศ. ๒๕๖๐]
English translation
Whoever dishonestly takes away property belonging to another person, or belonging to another person jointly, commits the offence of theft and shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years and a fine not exceeding sixty thousand baht.
ThaiLawOnline translation, written from the Thai original and verified
Firm annotation
Section 334 is the base offence of theft and the foundation of the chapter on theft and snatching. Its elements are: taking away property; the property belongs to another or is co-owned by another; and the taking is done dishonestly. The dishonest intent is central and distinguishes theft from borrowing or an honest mistake as to ownership, and the co-ownership clause makes clear that taking jointly owned property can be theft. Theft is completed by the taking away with dishonest intent. This base offence is aggravated by the circumstances listed in Section 335 (for example, at night, with a weapon, or by two or more persons together) and by the use of a vehicle under Section 336 bis, and it is distinct from snatching in Section 336, which requires taking openly in the victim's presence.
Why this matters in practice
Theft is a non-compoundable offence, so returning the property or paying compensation does not by itself end the criminal case, though it is a strong mitigating factor and courts often reduce sentences where the accused confesses and makes good the loss. Penalty exposure is up to three years, but rises sharply if aggravating circumstances under Section 335 or the use of a vehicle under Section 336 bis are proved, so identifying which section is charged is critical. Common defences focus on the absence of dishonest intent, a genuine claim of right, or a lawful basis for taking. The victim may claim restitution or the value of the property alongside the criminal case.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3672/2568 (2025)
Under section 192 paragraph three of the Criminal Procedure Code the difference between theft and embezzlement is not a material difference, and what is proved is not treated as beyond the charge, unless the mistake in the charge misled the defendant in his defence. So where the charge is theft under Section 334 with Section 336 bis and the evidence establishes embezzlement, the court may convict of embezzlement.
The charge was that the defendant stole cash from the injured person on five occasions, 9,804,760 baht in all, using a motorcycle to facilitate the offence. The evidence showed the injured person had transferred the money into the accounts of the defendant and four others, who withdrew it and handed it to the defendant, and that he did not pass it on. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's conviction for embezzlement under Section 352 paragraph one, two years after reduction: the difference from the charge was not material, the defendant had not been misled in his defence, and the theft provisions did not apply.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 395 Supreme Court decisions (1963 to 2026)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 3672/2568 (2025)
- Decision 4925/2566 (2023)
- Decision 1230/2566 (2023)
- Decision 2253/2563 (2020)
- Decision 1473/2563 (2020)
- Decision 8343/2561 (2018)
- Decision 7289/2558 (2015)
- Decision 6642/2558 (2015)
This list is selected automatically, weighted towards judgments that turn on this section rather than ones that merely recite it when passing sentence. It has not yet been reviewed by the firm.
Most often cited alongside
- Section 335 254
- Section 78 188
- Section 83 156
- Section 91 123
- Section 357 105
- Thai CrPC s. 225 72
Sections that appear in the same judgments as this one most often. The figure is the number of decisions.
Counted across the firm's corpus of 83,652 Supreme Court decisions, 1921 to 2026. The count is complete; the stated year range trims rare outliers so it describes where the citations actually sit. These figures are computed by us and are not official court statistics. How we count these, and what we measured
Frequently asked questions
What is the penalty for theft in Thailand?
Basic theft under Section 334 carries up to three years in prison and a fine of up to 60,000 baht. The penalty is higher where aggravating circumstances under Section 335 or a vehicle under Section 336 bis are involved.
Does returning the stolen property end a theft case?
No. Theft is not a compoundable offence, so returning the property does not stop the prosecution, but it is a significant mitigating factor that often reduces the sentence.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Penal Code, s. 334 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 334. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-334/ (accessed 17 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.อ. มาตรา 334 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-334/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-334/"><p>Whoever dishonestly takes away property belonging to another person, or belonging to another person jointly, commits the offence of theft and shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years and a fine not exceeding sixty thousand baht.</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 334 (Thailand) — <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-334/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.