Section 358 — Mischief, damaging property
English translation
Whoever damages, destroys, depreciates, or renders useless property belonging to another person, or of which another person is a co-owner, commits the offence of mischief, and 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 358 is the basic mischief offence and the foundation of the chapter. Its elements are: the property belongs to another or is jointly owned, and the offender damages, destroys, depreciates, or renders it useless. It requires intent to damage another's property, so accidental or negligent damage is not caught. It is the parent provision for the aggravated forms: Section 359 raises the penalty where the target is farm machinery, livestock, public-transport vehicles, or a farmer's crops, and Section 360 applies where the property is used or held for public benefit. Whether damaged property serves the general public or only a private group is what separates ordinary mischief under Section 358 from the public-benefit offence in Section 360. Section 358 mischief is compoundable under Section 361.
Why this matters in practice
Mischief is one of the most common charges in neighbour, land, and family disputes, often filed alongside trespass or assault. Because Section 361 makes plain mischief under Section 358 compoundable, cases are frequently settled and the complaint withdrawn, which is a strong practical lever. The line with Section 360 matters for exposure: damaging property that benefits only a private group, such as a wall serving a single housing estate, is ordinary mischief at up to three years, not the heavier public-benefit offence. Intent to damage is essential, so accidental damage is not a crime under this section, though it may still found a civil claim. See criminal law in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1552/2568 (2025)
A concrete boundary wall that benefits only the buyers of a particular land development, and not the general public, is not property used or held for public benefit under Section 360, so damaging it is ordinary mischief under Section 358 rather than the aggravated public-benefit offence.
The court held that a concrete wall existing only for the benefit of buyers in a land development was not property used or held for public benefit, so damaging it did not amount to the public-benefit mischief offence under Section 360, leaving ordinary mischief under Section 358 as the correct frame.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Is accidental damage a crime under Section 358?
No. Mischief requires intent to damage another's property, so damage caused by accident or negligence is not caught, although it may still support a civil claim for compensation.
Can a mischief case be settled?
Yes. Section 361 makes plain mischief under Section 358 compoundable, so the parties can settle and the injured party can withdraw the complaint.
When is damage more serious than Section 358?
Section 359 applies to farm machinery, livestock, public-transport vehicles, or crops, and Section 360 applies to property used for public benefit. Both carry up to five years.