Section 50: Prohibition of occupation
Statutory text (Thai original)
เมื่อศาลพิพากษาให้ลงโทษผู้ใด ถ้าศาลเห็นว่าผู้นั้นกระทำความผิดโดยอาศัยโอกาสจากการประกอบอาชีพหรือวิชาชีพ หรือเนื่องจากการประกอบอาชีพหรือวิชาชีพ และเห็นว่าหากผู้นั้นประกอบอาชีพหรือวิชาชีพนั้นต่อไปอาจจะกระทำความผิดเช่นนั้นขึ้นอีก ศาลจะสั่งไว้ในคำพิพากษาห้ามการประกอบอาชีพหรือวิชาชีพนั้นมีกำหนดเวลาไม่เกินห้าปีนับแต่วันพ้นโทษไปแล้วก็ได้
English translation
When the court passes a sentence on any person, if the court is of the opinion that that person committed the offence by taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by an occupation or profession, or by reason of carrying on that occupation or profession, and is of the opinion that if that person continues to carry it on he may commit such an offence again, the court may order in the judgment the prohibition of that occupation or profession for a period not exceeding five years from the day of release from punishment.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 50 is an occupational disqualification imposed as a measure of safety, and it has three requirements, the third of which is easily overlooked. The offence must have been committed by taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by an occupation or profession, or by reason of carrying it on; and the court must further be of the opinion that if the person continues to carry on that occupation or profession they may commit such an offence again. Only then may the court order the prohibition, and only for a period not exceeding five years counted from the day of release from punishment rather than from the day of the judgment. The text refers to an occupation or a profession. Because the measure is preventive rather than punitive, it is the likelihood of a further offence that justifies it, so a connection between the work and the offence is not by itself enough.
Why this matters in practice
For a licensed professional this is a career risk that survives the sentence, because the five years run from release. Two points are worth taking early. First, the offence must have used the opportunity of the occupation, so a conviction that merely happens to involve someone who holds a job does not meet the test. Second, the court must also be satisfied that the person may commit such an offence again if they continue in that occupation, which is a forward-looking judgment that evidence about their circumstances can answer. Businesses and licensed professionals facing charges should read on corporate criminal liability in Thailand and take early advice.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 6530/2556 (2013)
Section 50 is a measure to prohibit an occupation and applies only where the offender engaged in an occupation or profession and used its opportunity to offend, with the court finding continuation risks further offenses; it cannot be invoked by a defendant to preserve a license.
The defendant asked the court to apply Section 50 so he could keep his private driving license. The Supreme Court explained that applying Section 50 requires the defendant to have engaged in an occupation or profession and to have offended by using its opportunity, and that continuing it may lead to further offenses; the provision does not operate to preserve a license.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 18462/2555 (2012)
Where the court suspends the sentence of imprisonment, it cannot make the order prohibiting an occupation or profession that Section 50 allows.
In a share-price manipulation case under section 243 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535, the prosecution asked for a five-year ban under Section 50 on the defendants practising occupations connected with securities trading on the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Because the court suspended the first defendant's sentence of imprisonment, it held that it could not make that order, and it dismissed the request.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2425/2554 (2011)
Where a teacher offended against a pupil in his charge, Section 50 may be invoked to seek a ban on the teaching profession for up to five years from release.
A teacher was convicted of indecent act and rape against a pupil under his supervision. The prosecution invoked Section 50, seeking a safety measure barring the defendant from the teaching profession for five years from release or from being freed.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 22 Supreme Court decisions (1957 to 2013)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 6530/2556 (2013)
- Decision 18462/2555 (2012)
- Decision 5177/2537 (1994)
- Decision 2414/2521 (1978)
- Decision 662/2548 (2005)
- Decision 1409/2534 (1991)
- Decision 7146/2552 (2009)
- Decision 5399/2553 (2010)
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 91 13
- Section 83 10
- Section 29 8
- Section 30 8
- Section 90 8
- Section 78 5
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
When can a court ban someone from their occupation or profession?
Where the offence was committed by taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by that occupation or profession, or by reason of carrying it on, and the court is also of the opinion that the person may commit such an offence again if they continue in it.
How long can the prohibition last, and when does it start?
Not more than five years, counted from the day of release from punishment rather than from the day of the judgment.
Is it enough that the offence was committed at work?
No. The offence must have used the opportunity the occupation afforded, and the court must also find that the person may offend again if they carry on in it. Both are required before an order can be made.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Penal Code, s. 50 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 50. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-50/ (accessed 20 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.อ. มาตรา 50 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-50/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-50/"><p>When the court passes a sentence on any person, if the court is of the opinion that that person committed the offence by taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by an occupation or profession, or by reason of carrying on that occupation or profession, and…</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 50 (Thailand) — <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-50/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.