Whoever, being in possession of property belonging to another person or which another person is a co-owner, dishonestly converts such property to his own or a third person's benefit, commits misappropriation and shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding three years, or fined not exceeding sixty thousand Baht, or both.
MisappropriationยักยอกBreach of trustผิดความไว้วางใจ
Why This Section Mattersทำไมมาตรานี้จึงสำคัญ
Misappropriation — dishonestly converting property already in one's lawful possession — carries up to 3 years or a 60,000 Baht fine, or both; it is the offence for entrusted money or goods kept for oneself.
Possession (not mere custody) is the key element; a co-actor with the entrusted holder can be a co-principal. Compoundable, with the 3-month §96 window.
The Supreme Court clarified that the offence of misappropriation under Section 352 requires the property to be tangible and capable of being possessed. The key distinction between theft (Section 334) and misappropriation (Section 352) lies in the 'possession test': theft requires taking property that is in the possession of another, while misappropriation occurs when property already in the offender's possession is dishonestly converted. Misappropriation is a compoundable offence that can be settled, whereas theft is a non-compoundable offence that must proceed regardless of the victim's wishes.
The Supreme Court clarified that the offence of misappropriation under Section 352 requires the property to be tangible and capable of being possessed. The key distinction between theft (Section 334) and misappropriation (Section 352) lies in the 'possession test': theft requires taking property that is in the possession of another, while misappropriation occurs when property already in the offender's possession is dishonestly converted. Misappropriation is a compoundable offence that can be settled, whereas theft is a non-compoundable offence that must proceed regardless of the victim's wishes.
The Supreme Court emphasized that 'dishonesty' (โดยทุจริต) under Section 1(1) is a subjective element that must exist at the time of the act. The defendant's state of mind and intention to obtain an advantage to which he was not legally entitled must be proven as existing at the moment of the criminal conduct, not before or after. This decision is a key authority on the mens rea requirement for property offences including theft, fraud, and misappropriation.
The Supreme Court emphasized that 'dishonesty' (โดยทุจริต) under Section 1(1) is a subjective element that must exist at the time of the act. The defendant's state of mind and intention to obtain an advantage to which he was not legally entitled must be proven as existing at the moment of the criminal conduct, not before or after. This decision is a key authority on the mens rea requirement for property offences including theft, fraud, and misappropriation.
Disclaimer: The English translation is unofficial and for informational purposes only. The authoritative text is in Thai as published in the Royal Thai Government Gazette (Ratchakitchanubeksa).ข้อสงวนสิทธิ์: คำแปลภาษาอังกฤษเป็นคำแปลอย่างไม่เป็นทางการ เพื่อวัตถุประสงค์ในการให้ข้อมูลเท่านั้น ข้อความที่เป็นทางการเป็นภาษาไทยตามที่ประกาศในราชกิจจานุเบกษา
