Section 96: Three-month complaint window
Statutory text (Thai original)
ภายใต้บังคับมาตรา ๙๕ ในกรณีความผิดอันยอมความได้ ถ้าผู้เสียหายมิได้ร้องทุกข์ภายในสามเดือนนับแต่วันที่รู้เรื่องความผิดและรู้ตัวผู้กระทำความผิด เป็นอันขาดอายุความ
English translation
Subject to Section 95, in the case of a compoundable offence, if the injured person does not lodge a complaint within three months from the date of becoming aware of the offence and of the offender, the case is barred by prescription.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 96 governs prescription for compoundable offences (khwam phit an yom khwam dai) such as embezzlement and cheating and fraud, offences that the injured person may settle. It adds a short three-month complaint period running from the moment the injured person knows both the offence and the offender, on top of, and expressly subject to, the general prescription periods in Section 95. Two conditions must coincide before the clock starts: knowledge of the offence and knowledge of the identity of the offender. Because the section opens with subject to Section 95, the three-month window can never extend prosecution beyond the outer limits Section 95 sets. Whether an offence is compoundable is determined by the specific offence provision, for example Section 356 for embezzlement.
Why this matters in practice
For victims of compoundable offences like fraud or embezzlement, the three-month clock is the trap: delay past three months from knowing both what happened and who did it, and the right to prosecute is lost even though the general Section 95 period may still be open. Lodge the complaint promptly and record when you learned the offender's identity, because the start date is fact-sensitive and often disputed. For defendants, a late complaint is a clean prescription defence. If money was taken by deception or misappropriation, act quickly on the complaint; you can learn more about fraud and scam laws in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2212/2567 (2024)
Embezzlement under Section 352 is a compoundable offence, so if the injured person does not complain within three months of learning the offence and the offender, the case is barred under Section 96.
The court confirmed that embezzlement under Section 352 is compoundable under Section 356 and therefore subject to the three-month complaint window in Section 96, running from when the injured person learned of the offence and the offender.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 485/2567 (2024)
Cheating and fraud under Section 341 is a compoundable offence, and where the victim prosecutes directly, the victim bears the burden of proving the case was brought within the Section 96 period.
The victim alleged fraud under Section 341, a compoundable offence. Because the victim had not lodged a complaint and prosecuted directly, the court held the victim had to prove that the case was filed within the three-month window under Section 96.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 135 Supreme Court decisions (1960 to 2025)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 3674/2568 (2025)
- Decision 5770/2568 (2025)
- Decision 2212/2567 (2024)
- Decision 485/2567 (2024)
- Decision 532/2566 (2023)
- Decision 3477/2565 (2022)
- Decision 2853/2564 (2021)
- Decision 1933/2564 (2021)
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 37
- Section 83 36
- Section 341 28
- Thai CrPC s. 39 27
- Section 352 26
- Section 78 21
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 does the three-month period start?
Under Section 96 the three months start only when the injured person knows both that the offence occurred and who the offender is. Both facts must be known before the clock begins.
Does Section 96 apply to every offence?
No. Section 96 applies only to compoundable offences. Whether an offence is compoundable is set by its own provision, such as Section 356 for embezzlement, and the rule operates subject to Section 95.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Penal Code, s. 96 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 96. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-96/ (accessed 21 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.อ. มาตรา 96 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-96/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-96/"><p>Subject to Section 95, in the case of a compoundable offence, if the injured person does not lodge a complaint within three months from the date of becoming aware of the offence and of the offender, the case is barred by prescription.</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 96 (Thailand) — <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-96/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.