Section 353: Breach of trust in managing property
Statutory text (Thai original)
ผู้ใดได้รับมอบหมายให้จัดการทรัพย์สินของผู้อื่น หรือทรัพย์สินซึ่งผู้อื่นเป็นเจ้าของรวมอยู่ด้วย กระทำผิดหน้าที่ของตนด้วยประการใด ๆ โดยทุจริต จนเป็นเหตุให้เกิดความเสียหายแก่ประโยชน์ในลักษณะที่เป็นทรัพย์สินของผู้นั้น ต้องระวางโทษจำคุกไม่เกินสามปี หรือปรับไม่เกินหกหมื่นบาท หรือทั้งจำทั้งปรับ หมายเหตุ: [อัตราโทษ แก้ไขเพิ่มเติมโดยมาตรา ๔ แห่งพระราชบัญญัติแก้ไขเพิ่มเติมประมวลกฎหมายอาญา (ฉบับที่ ๒๖) พ.ศ. ๒๕๖๐]
English translation
Whoever, being entrusted with the management of the property of another person, or of property of which another person is a co-owner, dishonestly acts in breach of his duty in any manner so as to cause damage to the property interests of that person, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding sixty 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 353 is the breach-of-trust form of misappropriation. Its elements are: the offender was entrusted with managing another's property or jointly owned property, he acted in breach of that duty in any manner, he acted dishonestly, and his conduct caused damage to the owner's property interests. Unlike Section 352, it does not require converting a specific item; any dishonest breach of the management duty that causes financial loss suffices, which makes it the natural charge against directors, managers, trustees, and agents. It is aggravated by Section 354 where the manager holds office by court order, under a will, or in a business the public trusts, and like the rest of the chapter it is compoundable under Section 356.
Why this matters in practice
This is the provision most often used in disputes between business partners, companies and their directors, and estate beneficiaries against administrators. The prosecution must show a genuine management duty, a dishonest breach, and resulting financial loss, so a good-faith commercial decision that merely turned out badly is not enough. Because the offence is compoundable under Section 356, the three-month complaint deadline from knowledge of the offence and offender is a live trap, and a portion of a claim amended into the case too late can be time-barred. Exposure is up to three years, rising to five where Section 354 applies. See our note on corporate criminal liability in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5902/2567 (2024)
A person appointed by court order to manage another's property who dishonestly breaches his duty and causes damage to those property interests commits the offence under Section 353, and where the appointment is by court order the aggravated form under Section 354 applies.
The court held that the two defendants, entrusted by court order to manage another's property, breached their duty dishonestly and caused loss, and convicted them under Section 353 read with Section 354, sentencing each to two years, affirmed on appeal.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1543/2568 (2025)
Breach of trust in managing property is compoundable, so a portion of the claim amended into the case more than three months after the injured party knew of the offence and offender is time-barred under Section 96 and the right to prosecute it lapses.
The defendant was convicted on several counts under Section 353 read with Section 354. The Supreme Court held that the part of the complaint concerning a four million baht sum, amended in more than three months after the plaintiffs knew of the offence and offender, was time-barred, so the right to prosecute that portion had lapsed.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 232 Supreme Court decisions (1960 to 2025)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 298/2567 (2024)
- Decision 4903/2565 (2022)
- Decision 2853/2564 (2021)
- Decision 6647/2560 (2017)
- Decision 8651/2558 (2015)
- Decision 17227/2557 (2014)
- Decision 12058/2555 (2012)
- Decision 9568/2555 (2012)
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 352 184
- Section 91 95
- Section 354 94
- Section 83 87
- Section 90 45
- Section 78 38
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
How is Section 353 different from ordinary misappropriation?
Section 352 requires converting specific property, while Section 353 covers any dishonest breach of a duty to manage another's property that causes financial loss, even without taking a particular item.
Can a company director be charged under Section 353?
Yes. Directors, managers, and agents entrusted to manage assets are typical defendants where a dishonest breach of duty causes the company or owner a loss.
Is there a deadline to file a Section 353 case?
Yes. Because it is compoundable under Section 356, the injured party must complain within three months of knowing the offence and the offender, or prosecution is time-barred.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Penal Code, s. 353 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 353. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-353/ (accessed 17 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.อ. มาตรา 353 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-353/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-353/"><p>Whoever, being entrusted with the management of the property of another person, or of property of which another person is a co-owner, dishonestly acts in breach of his duty in any manner so as to cause damage to the property interests of that person, shall…</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 353 (Thailand) — <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-353/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.