Section 71 — Property offences within the family
English translation
An offence provided in Sections 334 to 336 paragraph one, Sections 341 to 344, Sections 352 to 354, Section 357, or Sections 358 to 360, if it is committed between husband and wife, the doer shall not be punished.
As to the offences mentioned in the first paragraph, if the act is committed against an ascendant or a descendant, or against a brother or sister of the same parents, the Court may inflict a punishment less than that provided by law to any extent, and such offence shall be a compoundable offence.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 71 provides special treatment for a defined list of property offences (Sections 334 to 336 paragraph one, 341 to 344, 352 to 354, 357, and 358 to 360) when committed within the family. Paragraph one grants a complete exemption from punishment where the offence is between husband and wife. Paragraph two, for offences against an ascendant, descendant, or full sibling, gives the court discretion to reduce the penalty below the statutory minimum to any extent and, importantly, converts the offence into a compoundable one even where the underlying provision would otherwise be non-compoundable. The list is exhaustive, so aggravating provisions outside it (such as Section 336 bis, which only increases the penalty for theft) do not add offences but ride on the listed base offence. The provision reflects a policy of keeping intra-family property disputes settleable and lightly punished.
Why this matters in practice
Section 71 matters most for its compoundability effect: for a listed property offence committed by a family member against an ascendant, descendant, or full sibling, the case becomes one the complainant can settle and withdraw, even where theft would normally be non-compoundable. This gives real leverage in family property disputes, since a settlement can end the prosecution. Between spouses, the exemption is complete and no punishment follows. For a defendant, establishing the qualifying relationship is the key fact, and an aggravated label such as Section 336 bis does not remove the section's benefit because it only enhances the listed base offence. Where a family theft or breach-of-trust case can be resolved by agreement, early legal advice on settlement is well worth taking.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3681/2568 (2025)
Theft committed between full siblings falls under Section 71 paragraph two, allowing the court to impose a punishment below the statutory level.
The defendant was a full sibling of the victim and was charged with theft under Sections 335 and 336 bis. Because the act was between full siblings under Section 71 paragraph two, the Court found it appropriate to impose a punishment below the statutory level and reduced the sentence.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1543/2568 (2025)
Criminal breach of trust committed against full siblings falls under Section 71 paragraph two, giving the court discretion to reduce the punishment below the statutory level.
The defendant committed an offence under Sections 353 and 354 against the two plaintiffs, who were his full siblings. The Court noted that Section 71 paragraph two gives it discretion to impose a punishment below the statutory level, indicating the legislature treats such intra-family conduct as less serious.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1750/2568 (2025)
Where a descendant commits a listed property offence against an ascendant, Section 71 paragraph two makes it compoundable even if the base offence is otherwise non-compoundable, and an aggravating provision such as Section 336 bis does not change this.
The defendant, a child of the victim, was charged with theft under Section 335 paragraph one. The Court held that under Section 71 paragraph two the offence was compoundable even though not otherwise so, and that Section 336 bis merely aggravates the penalty for Section 335 and does not remove that effect.
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 theft between husband and wife a crime in Thailand?
For the property offences listed in Section 71, an act between husband and wife carries no punishment. The doer is exempt, though the list is limited to specific offences such as theft, cheating, and criminal breach of trust.
Does Section 71 make theft against a parent compoundable?
Yes. Where a descendant commits a listed property offence against an ascendant, or between full siblings, Section 71 paragraph two makes it a compoundable offence and lets the court reduce the punishment below the statutory level.
Does an aggravating provision like Section 336 bis remove the Section 71 benefit?
No. Section 336 bis only increases the penalty for theft under Section 335; it is not a separate offence, so it rides on the listed base offence and does not defeat the compoundability created by Section 71 paragraph two.