Section 336 — Snatching of property
English translation
Whoever commits theft by snatching away property in the presence of the owner commits the offence of snatching, and shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years and a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand baht.
If the snatching causes bodily or mental harm to another person, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment from two years to seven years and a fine from forty thousand baht to one hundred forty thousand baht.
If the snatching causes grievous bodily harm to another person, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment from three years to ten years and a fine from sixty thousand baht to two hundred thousand baht.
If the snatching causes the death of another person, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment from five years to fifteen years and a fine from one hundred thousand baht to three 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 336 defines snatching (wing rao sap) as theft committed by snatching property away openly in the presence of the owner. It shares the dishonest taking of another's property with theft under Section 334, but is distinguished by the open, sudden grabbing in the victim's presence, rather than a stealthy taking. The first paragraph sets the basic penalty of up to five years and a fine to 100,000 baht. The following paragraphs create result-aggravated forms: two to seven years where the snatching causes bodily or mental harm; three to ten years for grievous bodily harm; and five to fifteen years where it causes death. The offence sits between ordinary theft under Section 334 and robbery, which involves the use of force or threat, and it can be further aggravated by the vehicle provision in Section 336 bis.
Why this matters in practice
Snatching is not a compoundable offence, so compensation to the victim mitigates but does not end the case. The line between snatching and robbery matters greatly: if force or a threat of force is used to take the property, the more serious offence of robbery applies, whereas a purely open grab is snatching. Equally important is the line with embezzlement, where property already lawfully in the accused's possession is dishonestly converted; a charge framed as snatching may be reduced to embezzlement on the facts proved. The result-aggravated paragraphs carry heavy exposure, up to fifteen years where death results, so the causal link between the snatching and any harm is central at trial.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 809/2568 (2025)
Where a charge of snatching and the facts proved of embezzlement do not differ in any material respect and the defendant is not misled in his defence, the court may convict of embezzlement under Section 352 on the facts established.
The defendant was charged with snatching under Sections 335 and 336, but the facts showed embezzlement. As the two did not differ materially and the defendant was not misled, the appellate court convicted of embezzlement under Section 352, which the Supreme Court upheld.
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 snatching and robbery in Thailand?
Snatching under Section 336 is theft by openly grabbing property in the owner's presence without using force. If force or a threat of force is used to take the property, it becomes the more serious offence of robbery.
What if the snatching injures the victim?
The penalty increases with the harm: two to seven years for bodily or mental harm, three to ten years for grievous bodily harm, and five to fifteen years if the victim dies.