Section 353 — Breach of trust in managing property
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.
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.