Section 356: Misappropriation compoundable
Statutory text (Thai original)
ความผิดในหมวดนี้เป็นความผิดอันยอมความได้
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.
Cited in 10 Supreme Court decisions (1986 to 2024)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 4903/2565 (2022)
- Decision 16081-16083/2555 (2012)
- Decision 45/2567 (2024)
- Decision 404/2565 (2022)
- Decision 2212/2567 (2024)
- Decision 372/2549 (2006)
- Decision 4045/2545 (2002)
- Decision 2278/2543 (2000)
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 6
- Section 78 5
- Section 96 4
- Thai CrPC s. 39 4
- Section 83 4
- Section 91 4
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
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.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Penal Code, s. 356 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 356. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-356/ (accessed 17 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.อ. มาตรา 356 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-356/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-356/"><p>The offences in this chapter are compoundable offences.</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 356 (Thailand) — <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-356/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.