Section 356 — Misappropriation compoundable
English translation
The offences in this chapter are compoundable offences.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 356 sets the procedural character of the whole misappropriation chapter rather than creating an offence. By making Sections 352, 353, 354, and 355 compoundable, it renders them personal offences: the injured party must complain within three months of knowing both the offence and the offender under Section 96, and a settlement extinguishes the criminal case at any point before final judgment. This has decisive consequences in practice because misappropriation disputes often surface long after the money or property has gone, and the clock and the identity of the proper complainant frequently decide the case.
Why this matters in practice
Two practical traps follow from this section. First, the three-month complaint deadline runs from when the injured party knows the offence and the offender, and missing it bars prosecution, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed in misappropriation cases. Second, only the true injured party under the law can lawfully complain, so a complaint by someone who is not the proper injured party can void the whole prosecution. Because the offence is compoundable, it also gives strong settlement leverage on both sides. Anyone weighing a misappropriation complaint should move quickly and confirm standing; see fraud and dishonesty offences in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2212/2567 (2024)
Misappropriation under Section 352 is a compoundable offence under Section 356, so if the injured party does not complain within three months of knowing the offence and the offender, the case is time-barred under Section 96.
The issue was whether the prosecution was time-barred. The Supreme Court restated that misappropriation is compoundable under Section 356 and that failure to complain within three months of knowing the offence and offender under Section 96 ends the right to prosecute.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 404/2565 (2022)
Because misappropriation is a personal, compoundable offence under Section 356, only the true injured party under the law may complain; where the complainant is not the proper injured party, the investigation and prosecution are without authority.
The Supreme Court held that the complainant was not the injured party in law for the alleged joint misappropriation, a compoundable offence under Section 356, so the investigating officer had no power to investigate and the prosecutor had no authority to prosecute.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Which offences does Section 356 make compoundable?
All offences in the misappropriation chapter, that is Sections 352 to 355, including the aggravated form under Section 354.
What is the deadline to file a misappropriation complaint?
Three months from when the injured party learns of the offence and the offender, under Section 96. Missing that window means the prosecution is time-barred.
Can anyone file the complaint?
No. Only the person who is the true injured party under the law may lawfully complain in a compoundable offence, and a complaint by someone else can invalidate the prosecution.