Section 349 — Damaging one's own pledged property
English translation
Whoever takes away, damages, destroys, depreciates, or renders useless property that he has pledged to another person, if the act is done to cause damage to the pledgee, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding forty 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 349 sits in the chapter on cheating against creditors and protects the security interest of a pledgee. The elements are: the offender pledged property to the pledgee, the property remained subject to that pledge, the offender took it away or damaged, destroyed, depreciated, or rendered it useless, and he acted with the specific intent to cause damage to the pledgee. Because the offender is dealing with property he owns but has encumbered, the wrong lies in defeating the pledgee's security, not in taking another's property, which distinguishes it from theft and misappropriation. It commonly overlaps with trespass where the pledged goods are removed from the pledgee's premises.
Why this matters in practice
Exposure is modest, up to two years or a forty thousand baht fine, but the specific intent to harm the pledgee must be proved, so a pledgor who moved or handled the goods for a legitimate reason has a genuine defence. As with the whole chapter on cheating against creditors, this offence is compoundable under Section 351, so it can be settled and the complaint withdrawn. Where the goods are taken from a warehouse or premises held by the pledgee, prosecutors often add trespass, which raises the potential penalty. Anyone facing a pledge dispute that has turned criminal should get advice on fraud and dishonesty offences in Thailand before responding.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1363/2550 (2007)
A pledgor who sells off all of the goods he pledged to the pledgee, without permission and to cause the pledgee loss, commits the offence under Section 349, and where the goods were held in the pledgee's warehouse the conduct also disturbs the pledgee's possession of that immovable property.
The defendant had pledged goods worth over 21 million baht to the injured party and then sold them all off without permission, to cause the pledgee loss. The trial court found him guilty under Section 349 together with the aggravated trespass provisions, treating it as one act breaching several laws.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Is Section 349 about damaging someone else's property?
No. It applies where the offender damages or removes property that he himself pledged to another person, done to harm the pledgee. Damaging another person's property falls under the mischief sections instead.
Can a Section 349 case be settled?
Yes. Section 351 makes every offence in the cheating-against-creditors chapter compoundable, so the pledgee can settle and withdraw the complaint.
What must the prosecution prove?
That the property was pledged to the pledgee, that the accused took, damaged, destroyed, depreciated, or rendered it useless, and that he intended to cause the pledgee loss.