Section 352: Misappropriation of property held for another

Penalty rates amended by section 4 of the Act Amending the Penal Code (No. 26) B.E. 2560 (2017). Current penalty: imprisonment not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding sixty thousand baht, or both; one half of that where the property was delivered to the offender by mistake or is lost property the offender found.

What this means for foreigners

Supreme Court decisions on this section

1. Supreme Court Decision No. 2744/2562

   Facts: A French buyer agreed to buy land for 9,000,000 baht with the Thai defendant as nominee titleholder and transferred 8,000,000 baht into her account to pay the seller, which she kept.

   Held: The defendant possessed the buyer's money and dishonestly converted it, which is misappropriation; the foreigner was still an injured person because the Land Code does not bar foreign purchase absolutely, so the Court of Appeal's acquittal was reversed and the first instance conviction (2 years after reduction, return of 8,000,000 baht) restored.

   Why it matters: Money a foreigner entrusts to a Thai nominee or agent for a purchase is protected by section 352, and the nominee structure does not cost him standing.

   จำเลยครอบครองเงินของโจทก์ร่วมแล้วเบียดบังเอาเงินนั้นเป็นของตนเองโดยทุจริต การกระทำของจำเลยจึงเป็นความผิดฐานยักยอก

2. Supreme Court Decision No. 4096/2557

   Facts: A Thai woman holding title to a Dutch national's condominium unit for him falsely reported the title deed lost after his death, obtained a new one, changed the locks and sold the unit and contents.

   Held: Keeping the keys and paying utilities was temporary acting on the owner's behalf; possession was never delivered to her, so taking the unit was theft under section 334, not misappropriation, and the court corrected the provision applied under Criminal Procedure Code section 192 without increasing the penalty.

   Why it matters: Whether a nominee or caretaker commits misappropriation or theft depends on whether possession was handed over, and theft is not compoundable.

   เงินที่ได้จากการขายห้องชุดเป็นผลสืบเนื่องจากการแย่งกรรมสิทธิ์และการครอบครองของจำเลยเพราะนายเฮนดริกหรือโจทก์ร่วมไม่ได้ส่งมอบการครอบครองให้แก่จำเลย การกระทำของจำเลยจึงเป็นความผิดฐานลักทรัพย์

3. Supreme Court Decision No. 7836/2556

   Facts: A jewellery trader took jewellery worth 18,734,250 baht from the complainant to sell, giving cheques for the complainant's price and keeping any mark-up, and then neither paid nor returned the goods.

   Held: She held the goods under a contract, not as the complainant's agent, so failing to pay or return them was a civil breach of contract and not misappropriation; a guilty plea could not support the conviction, which was reversed.

   Why it matters: Goods taken on a sale or return basis for one's own profit are a civil debt, not property held for another.

   ก็เป็นเรื่องผิดสัญญาในทางแพ่ง จำเลยจึงไม่มีความผิดฐานยักยอกตามฟ้อง แม้จำเลยให้การรับสารภาพก็ลงโทษจำเลยไม่ได้

4. Supreme Court Decision No. 809/2568

   Facts: The defendant took 43 unchecked lottery tickets from a friend's hand to check them, he let her keep them, and she later said they had not won and never returned them.

   Held: In a decision of the plenary meeting, the court held that taking the tickets was on familiarity and with the owner's consent, so it was not theft or snatching; keeping them dishonestly when asked to return them was misappropriation under section 352 paragraph one, and the variance from the theft charge was not material.

   Why it matters: Property handed over with the owner's consent and then kept is misappropriation, not theft.

   การกระทำของจำเลยจึงเป็นการครอบครองสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาลของโจทก์ร่วมแล้วเบียดบังเอาเป็นของตนเองหรือบุคคลที่สามโดยทุจริต จึงเป็นความผิดฐานยักยอกทรัพย์ ตามประมวลกฎหมายอาญา มาตรา 352 วรรคหนึ่ง

5. Supreme Court Decision No. 1164/2568

   Facts: A wife took a car worth 1,300,000 baht that was marital property co-owned with her husband, and forged and used documents; she pleaded guilty.

   Held: A charge that she held the co-owned car and dishonestly converted it sets out every element of section 352 paragraph one; on restitution, a co-owner whose larger share is not shown recovers only half, so the order was reduced to 650,000 baht.

   Why it matters: A spouse or other co-owner can commit misappropriation of jointly owned property, but recovery is limited to the complainant's share.

   ครบองค์ประกอบความผิดตามประมวลกฎหมายอาญา มาตรา 352 วรรคแรก แล้ว

6. Supreme Court Decision No. 2212/2567

   Facts: The complainant hire-purchased a van to the defendant, who paid with 60 post-dated cheques that bounced and then disappeared with the van.

   Held: Misappropriation is compoundable under section 356; the complainant knew of the offence and the offender on the date of its settlement with the finance company, and filed its complaint more than three months later, so the prosecution was time-barred under section 96.

   Why it matters: A strong misappropriation case is lost if the complaint is filed more than three months after the victim knows the facts and the offender.

   ความผิดฐานยักยอกตามประมวลกฎหมายอาญา มาตรา 352 เป็นความผิดอันยอมความได้ตามประมวลกฎหมายอาญา มาตรา 356

7. Supreme Court Decision No. 13089-13090/2558

   Facts: After a capital increase, directors filed amended shareholder lists with the registrar that cut the two joint plaintiffs' shareholdings and raised the second defendant's.

   Held: The property misappropriated must be a tangible thing; shares only evidence a shareholder's rights and interest in the company, so they cannot be misappropriated, and the defendants were acquitted.

   Why it matters: A dilution or transfer of shares in a Thai company is not misappropriation; the remedy lies in company and civil law.

   หุ้นตามฟ้องเป็นเพียงสิ่งที่แสดงให้เห็นถึงสิทธิและหน้าที่หรือส่วนได้เสียของโจทก์ร่วมทั้งสองที่มีอยู่ในบริษัทจำเลยที่ 1 จึงไม่ใช่ทรัพย์ที่จะเบียดบังยักยอกได้

8. Supreme Court Decision No. 7626/2568

   Facts: One of two directors who had to sign jointly withdrew company money; the other director, a 44% shareholder, complained to the police.

   Held: In a decision of the plenary meeting, the court held that the money belonged to the company, but since the accused director would not cause the company to complain against herself and the other director could not act alone, the shareholder was an injured person entitled to complain, so the inquiry and the prosecution were valid; the misappropriation charge was remitted to the Court of Appeal.

   Why it matters: A minority shareholder, including a foreign one, can start a misappropriation case when a director takes company money and the company is deadlocked.

   โจทก์ร่วมซึ่งเป็นผู้ถือหุ้นในบริษัทจึงเป็นผู้เสียหายมีสิทธิฟ้องคดีเอง หรือร้องทุกข์ต่อพนักงานสอบสวน คดีนี้เป็นคดีความผิดต่อส่วนตัว

Related sections

• Section 334, Penal Code: Theft, where possession was never delivered (4096/2557).
• Section 341, Penal Code: Fraud, where property is obtained by deception rather than converted after lawful possession.
• Section 353, Penal Code: Breach of trust by a person entrusted with managing another's property; not shown in the pack.
• Section 354, Penal Code: Aggravated misappropriation by certain administrators and persons in a business of public trust, per the site annotation; not shown in the pack.
• Section 356, Penal Code: Makes misappropriation compoundable (2212/2567).
• Section 96, Penal Code: Three-month complaint deadline for compoundable offences (2212/2567).

Questions about this section

I gave money to my Thai partner to buy land and she kept it. Is that a crime even though I cannot own land?

It can be. In 2744/2562 a French buyer transferred 8,000,000 baht to the Thai woman who was to hold the land and pay the seller. She kept it and was convicted of misappropriation. The Supreme Court held the buyer was still an injured person, because the Land Code does not bar a foreigner absolutely.

When is failing to pay for goods misappropriation and when is it only a debt?

If you held the goods as the owner's agent and kept them or the proceeds, it can be misappropriation. If you took them under your own contract, for example to resell at your own mark-up, failing to pay is a civil breach. In 7836/2556 a jewellery trader in that position was acquitted even though she had pleaded guilty.

Is there a deadline to complain about misappropriation?

Yes. Misappropriation is compoundable under section 356, so the complaint must reach the inquiry official within three months of the day you knew of the offence and the offender (section 96). In 2212/2567 a complaint filed later was time-barred and the case was dismissed.

Can my spouse be prosecuted for taking our jointly owned car?

A co-owner can commit misappropriation of co-owned property. In 1164/2568 a wife who took a car that was marital property was convicted on her guilty plea, but the restitution order was limited to the husband's half share, 650,000 baht. Whether the spouse exemption in section 71 applies was not discussed in that case.