Defamation

ข้อควรรู้ รายละเอียดเบื้องต้น (เวลาอ่าน 5 นาที)
Defamation

General defamation

Article 326: Whoever communicates false information to a third person with the intent to harm the reputation, defame, or incite hatred against that person, commits the offense of defamation. The offender shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine not exceeding twenty thousand baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.

General defamation is when someone defames another person by their actions, causing harm to the reputation or leading to hatred and contempt towards the victim. This is considered a violation of the offense of defamation under Article 326.

The elements of the offense of defamation include:

1. Who?

2. slander others

3. By means likely to harm the reputation, subject the person to contempt, or cause them to be hated.

4. The offender must have the intent, which means the intent to make a statement or the intent to express a fact in any way that refers to another person who is the third party.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 2212/2536

The co-teacher, who is a senior instructor, was accused of embezzling money from the lunch program and other funds. A fact-finding committee was appointed to investigate, and they ordered the co-teacher to assist another government agency. In response, the co-teacher suspended the payment of salaries to the co-teacher and told the assistant bank accountant, “Yak Yok, not found.” This statement is intended to make the co-teacher look guilty of embezzling government funds and fleeing, thereby damaging their reputation, subjecting them to ridicule, or stirring up hatred. Therefore, it constitutes defamation of the co-teacher.
Jumleoi’s intention in making the statement was to intentionally defame the co-teacher by uttering false statements. Jumleoi knew well that at that time, the co-teacher was under investigation by a disciplinary committee and had been ordered to assist another government agency. This does not imply that the disciplinary committee had completed its investigation and concluded that the co-teacher had committed a disciplinary offense and fled. Therefore, Jumleoi’s statement was not an expression of honest opinion or factual information.
Jumleoi committed the offense before the enforcement date of the Penal Code (No. 11) Amendment Act B.E. 2535, which amended Section 326 of the Penal Code. Therefore, Jumleoi should be prosecuted under the original Section 326 of the Penal Code.

Defamation

Defaming the dead

Section 327: Whoever imputes to a deceased person anything which may be the cause of injury to the reputation of the father, mother, spouse or child of the deceased, shall be punished as provided in Section 326 of this Code.

Defamation of the deceased is the act of imputing or disparaging the deceased person in a manner that causes injury to the reputation of the deceased person’s father, mother, spouse, or child. This is considered an offense of defamation as defined in Section 326.

The elements of the offense of defamation of a dead person include:

1. Slander the deceased

2. to third parties

3. And this act must be the cause of causing the father, mother, spouse, or child of the deceased to suffer injury to their reputation or to be defamed or hated.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 6031/2531

The text written by Jamleuy #1 in the newspaper states, “Which party dares to say that people in the party are deeply involved in international heroin trade to the extent that they have to solve the problem by disappearing from the world?” The text suggests that the party referred to as “พรรค ป.” is implied in the context. and ด. Jamleuy #1, who is the author of the article, intended to defame the deceased person by advertising with documents, causing the reputation of Jamleuy #2, who is the wife and child of the deceased, to be insulted or hated by others. This is not an expression of opinion or a fair statement. Therefore, Jamleuy #1 has committed the offense of defamation according to Article 326. Jamleuy #2, as the editor and advertiser, is jointly liable with Jamleuy #1 under the law. Jamleuy #1 is a member of the House of Representatives and has previously served as a minister. If we wait for a prison sentence, it will only be a deterrent for Jamleuy #1 to behave better in the future, which may benefit society more than imprisoning Jamleuy #1. Both incidents and reasons of the case are appropriate to wait for a sentence to give both Jamleuy #1 and #2 the opportunity to behave as good citizens in the future.

Defamation

defamation by advertising

Article 328 states that if the offense of defamation is committed through advertising using documents, drawings, paintings, films, images, or letters that make the defamatory matter visible, in any way, sound recordings, image recordings, or written records, through the dissemination of sound or images, or through other methods, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht.

Defamation through advertising refers to the act of defamation committed by disseminating sound, images, or through other methods that make the defamatory matter visible, and which can be seen by the general public.

Components of the offense of defamation by advertising include:

1. There is an imputation.

2. Other people

3. To a third person (Section 326)/To a deceased person (Section 327)

4. That action

– Through media that makes the defamatory matter visible and understandable by any means or methods.

– distributed to many people

The Supreme Court’s judgment held that there was an offense of defamation through advertising.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 2499/2526

Jamloi placed the following text in a daily newspaper: “Announcement of the arrest of S. (the accused) on charges or grounds of embezzlement of property. Anyone who sees or has information, please report to the police station, (the victim).” Additionally, a picture of the accused was included next to the text. When Jamloi published this advertisement, he was aware that the accused had a fixed address. Therefore, Jamloi could easily have had the police officers arrest the accused based on the arrest warrant without the need to publish the arrest announcement in the newspaper. The text in the advertisement implies that the accused is dishonest. Jamloi’s actions constituted defamation against the accused, which could harm the accused’s reputation. The matter published by Jamloi is of a private nature and is not beneficial to the public. Even if the investigative officers issued a genuine arrest warrant, Jamloi’s actions would still be a criminal offense under Article 328 of the Penal Code.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 3545 / 2558

Both Jamloi’s actions were defamatory towards the accused and were made in statements to the media. As a result, the media had to present the statements made by both Jamloi in their newspapers. The fact that the newspapers presented the news based on the statements made by both Jamloi means that both of them used the media as a tool to defame the accused. Both Jamloi committed the offense of defamation through advertising under Article 328 of the Penal Code, not Article 326.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 1513/2551

To establish defamation under Article 326 and Article 328 of the Penal Code, it is essential that the statement made against another person directly identifies or clearly refers to a specific individual. If the statement does not directly specify the person who is being defamed, it must unambiguously refer to a particular individual. Additionally, for defamation through advertising in newspapers, it must be determined from the published text whether readers can identify the person being referred to in the statement. In essence, the statement must either directly identify a specific individual or be so clear that readers can discern the person being referenced.

The words published in the administrator’s newspaper do not indicate the plaintiff’s name or surname, or are sufficient to indicate that the plaintiff is the supervisor. The Retirement Fund Division No. 5, which is set to retire in the year 2546, received 3 million baht. However, the capital after retirement does not specify a clear name but is represented only by abbreviations. Furthermore, the workplace of Retirement Fund Division No. 5 is not clearly identified, making it difficult for the general public to understand or ascertain the meaning of the abbreviations, “P.” The meaning of anyone and whether it is true as published or not, can only be determined through further investigation. Even if it is discovered through additional investigation who the person is, it does not necessarily mean that the published text constitutes defamation against that person. The determination of whether it is defamation against the person can depend on the actual facts that the individual has personally investigated after the publication, not solely based on the text as it appears in the newspaper.

Supreme Court judgment that does not consider defamation by advertising

Supreme Court Judgment No. 5276/2562

The offense under Section 328 of the Criminal Code carries a penalty of imprisonment for up to 2 years and a fine not exceeding 200,000 baht. The authority to adjudicate and prosecute lies with a single judge, as provided for in the Constitution of the Judiciary, Article 25(5) and Article 26. However, a single judge also has the authority to investigate and prosecute for malicious prosecution under the Constitution of the Judiciary, Article 25(3), when such prosecution is in accordance with the law.
The Court of Appeals Region 7 has decided to reverse the judgment of the lower court and remand the case for further consideration and a new judgment, limited to the aspects that are not in accordance with the Constitution of the Judiciary, Article 31(1), in conjunction with Article 29(3). When investigating malicious prosecution under Section 328 of the Criminal Code by a single judge in the lower court, in accordance with the Constitution of the Judiciary, Article 25(3), there is no need for the lower court to conduct a new investigation. Furthermore, when the plaintiff (complainant) informs the lower court during the investigation that there are no more witnesses to present in the investigation of malicious prosecution, the investigation can be considered complete and the plaintiff cannot introduce additional evidence.
The judgment of the lower court, in which the presiding judge and the chief judge of the court jointly signed as a collegiate body, is a case where there is another compelling reason that makes it impossible to proceed individually, in accordance with the Constitution of the Judiciary, Article 31(1). The chief judge of the court has the authority to inspect cases and sign jointly as a collegiate body, in accordance with the Constitution of the Judiciary, Article 29(3). Therefore, when the lower court renders a judgment to reverse the indictment of the accused in the case of an offense under Section 328 of the Criminal Code, which carries a penalty beyond the authority of a single judge, and the chief judge of the court inspects the case and signs jointly as a collegiate body, it constitutes a reconsideration and a new judgment with the full panel of judges concurring.
The act of defaming or insulting someone towards a third party in a manner that could damage their reputation, subjecting them to contempt or hatred, constitutes the offense of defamation under Section 326 and Section 328 of the Penal Code. To be considered defamation, it must include specific information that makes it unequivocally clear who the person being defamed is. If the identity of the person being defamed is not explicitly mentioned, the act of defamation must still unmistakably refer to a particular individual.
Under Section 328 of the Penal Code, the offense of defamation by advertisement requires that the defamatory statement be disseminated to the public or the general population. When you sent the message via LINE application or posted it in an online group, it appears to be more of an intended communication or notification to a specific group of individuals within the LINE group. It does not seem to constitute the act of spreading the news to the public or the general population. Therefore, in such a case, it may not meet the criteria for a defamation offense under Section 328 of the Penal Code.

“*** Not guilty. It is not defamation by advertising under Section 328 of the Penal Code because it was not published to the general public but only disclosed within a specific group of individuals. Therefore, it constitutes a common defamation offense under Section 326 of the Penal Code only.”

Supreme Court Judgment No. 4291/2548

The first defendant made a complaint letter which contained defamatory statements. Filing a complaint specifically to the district officer is not considered advertising through documents. The aforementioned complaint letter is submitted to the district officer of Khonsan, who is an individual in their own right. Therefore, the first defendant did not have the intention to advertise to the general public other than the district officer of Khonsan, and as such, it does not constitute defamation by advertising.

Defamation

Article 329 does not constitute a misdemeanor.

Article 329 does not constitute a misdemeanor.
(1) For righteousness Protect oneself or protect one’s interests according to Dhamma.
(2) As an official performing duties
(3) Give criticism with fairness. which any person or thing that is in the nature of the people would do, o
(4) In giving fair news about open proceedings in court or in meetings.
That person is not guilty of defamation.

This provision is not considered a defamation offense because it is a matter stated honestly, meaning that it is believed that the opinion, statement, or communication is correct and truthful as understood. Such an action is not considered an offense.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 3269/2533

The heir and the injured party both work at the same land office. The fact that someone contacted the injured party to inquire about inheriting land at the said land office and then subsequently contacted the heir in a manner that implies that the injured party had requested money from the person contacted, which is unauthorized, led the heir to report the matter to the authorities. In this case, since the individual is the superior authority over both themselves and the injured party and informed them in order to conduct further investigations into the truth of the matter, it can be considered that the individual expressed an opinion or statement in good faith for the sake of justice to protect their rights related to the matter. Therefore, the individual is not guilty of defamation.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 1459/2527

The complaint alleges that Jamluey intentionally stated in a letter to the Royal Thai Air Force that the plaintiff was dismissed from serving as an employee of the Air Traffic Control Division of the Royal Thai Air Force because the plaintiff is a person with a disability. It can be considered that the plaintiff has spoken clearly, which includes statements related to defamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 158, as stated in the plaintiff’s complaint and the letter sent by the plaintiff to the court requesting to return to military service in the Royal Thai Air Force. The Royal Thai Air Force inquired with the Air Traffic Control Division of the Royal Thai Air Force about the reason for the plaintiff’s dismissal from employment, and Jamluey, in his capacity as the Director of the Air Traffic Control Division of the Royal Thai Air Force, responded with a letter stating that the plaintiff was dismissed because of his disability. Therefore, Jamluey’s letter to the Royal Thai Air Force is not considered advertising by means of documents within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 328. Furthermore, when Jamluey’s actions, as described in the complaint by the plaintiff, do not constitute an offense according to the statutory provisions, the court is entitled to proceed with the lawsuit without the need for further investigation.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 6310/2539

Jumleoy brought a recording tape in which both the victims were conversing about their mutual behavior towards each other at the school where both of them teach. He played it for Mr. S.M., the head of the district’s elementary education, and others who were present at Mr. S.M.’s home. These individuals are all associated with the education sector. They did not discuss the matter in a public place but rather in a consultative manner to figure out what to do next. It should be noted that both victims are teachers and are married. Therefore, their actions were not intended to defame, insult, or harm the victims but rather were a common practice among the public. Jumleoy did not commit the offense of defamation.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 6483/2531

When Jumleoy filed a case against the plaintiff, describing in the complaint that the plaintiff was a person with excessive debts, it was necessary to mention this in the complaint for the plaintiff to clearly understand the charge. This can be considered as a statement made during the trial process in the court for the benefit of the case. Therefore, it does not constitute the offense of defamation under the Criminal Code Section 331. Regarding the portion where Jumleoy took the text related to the lawsuit against the plaintiff and published it in a newspaper, the text published in the newspaper corresponds to what was included in Jumleoy’s complaint, and there is no additional content beyond that. This does not indicate any dishonest intent on the part of Jumleoy. The fact that the newspaper presented this information as news about a lawsuit filed in court means that Jumleoy reported the matter in a fair manner, disclosing what was happening in court. Therefore, Jumleoy is protected by the law under the Criminal Code Section 329(4), and there is no offense of defamation.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 1064/2531

Whether the statement constitutes defamation or not should not be analyzed based on the general feelings of the public but rather on whether the statement has the potential to harm the reputation of the person being defamed or not. It is not based on the feelings of the person being defamed, but rather on whether the statement is likely to make others view the defamed person with contempt or hatred. In this case, Jumleoy testified that the plaintiff did not perform his duties well, and the bank had penalized him by deducting 10% of his salary because the plaintiff was not very active and often absent from work. The plaintiff acknowledged the truth of these statements but avoided saying that he had been penalized. Jumleoy’s intention was to present the truth to the court for consideration, and he did not have the intention to maliciously defame or slander the plaintiff. As for the part where Jumleoy testified that the plaintiff was the head of a department in the bank or the head of a department in the public, it was heard and understood differently due to the differences in the meaning of the terms of these positions. The listener did not perceive or understand that Jumleoy was implying that the plaintiff was a bad person. Therefore, the statements made by Jumleoy do not constitute the offense of defamation.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 20106/2556

Jumleoy previously held the position of the temple abbot, while the plaintiff, Jot, had been the president of the ordination hall committee. They both had roles related to the temple and were members of the temple committee. However, they had conflicts regarding the temple’s finances, with each side accusing the other of embezzling temple funds. This conflict led to a legal case. In response, Jumleoy wrote a message accusing Jot of having previously committed sins and embezzling temple funds. Jumleoy also posted notices at the temple forbidding Jot from entering the temple grounds and accusing him of embezzlement. These actions were seen as a response to the accusations made by Jot. Given the context of their roles within the temple and the ongoing conflict related to temple finances, Jumleoy’s actions can be considered a sincere response to protect his own reputation and interests in accordance with the principles of justice. Therefore, Jumleoy’s actions do not constitute defamation under Section 329 (1) of the Penal Code.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 2813/2559

The opening of a casino where a senior police officer is involved is not just a fact that the general public wants to know. It is widely known that gambling can lead to moral degradation and can result in other criminal activities, creating a chain reaction that impacts the peace and good morals of the public. If a senior police officer, who is responsible for controlling and combating crime, is found to be involved in such activities, it not only tarnishes the reputation of the police force but also hinders the efforts to combat crime. In the case of the Rachada Casino, both Jumleoy and Jot were interviewed by Pol. Lt. Col. S., the head of the investigation, with the direct intention of revealing the accurate facts. It is not evident that both Jumleoy and Jot were motivated by anger or resentment against each other beforehand. It is believed that both Jumleoy and Jot acted with sincerity and their actions were commendable in terms of justice. When actions are taken to commend an individual or something that is a general sentiment of the public, even if they contain defamatory statements, such actions do not constitute an offense under Section 329 (3) of the Penal Code.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 11119/2558

The fact that all three defendants did not raise a defense under Section 329 (1) in the lower court does not prevent them from raising such a defense in the Court of Appeal if the Court of Appeal finds that the actions fall within the legal exceptions, indicating that the actions are not offenses. In such a case, the Court of Appeal has the authority to review the case and dismiss the charges against the defendants under Section 185 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This legal issue pertains to maintaining peace and order, and the Court of Appeal has the power to exercise its discretion under Section 195 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 3546/2558

The news regarding encroachment on national forest reserves and overlapping land titles in forest areas is a matter of significant public interest as it has implications for the quality of life of everyone in society. The facts presented by Defendant 1 in their publication are based on investigations and inquiries conducted by relevant authorities, including the Department of Forestry, Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, as well as police officers. In their capacity as mass media, Defendants 1 and 2 have a duty to provide accurate information to the public based on the facts uncovered by diligent and honest investigations. Although certain parts of the text may lead readers to believe that the plaintiff (Defendant 3) is involved in criminal activities, it should be noted that Defendant 3 has not been charged or prosecuted, and the decision to pursue legal action is a matter for the relevant authorities. Therefore, the act of presenting news and analytical information by Defendants 1 and 2 is an act of fair criticism and an expression of the public’s inherent sense of justice. Consequently, Defendants 1 and 2 are not liable for defamation under Section 329 (3) of the Criminal Code.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 10034/2555

The act of Defendant 1, who is the head of the sub-district administrative organization of Sa Kra Tiem, issuing a statement in writing distributed to the public alleging that the plaintiff (Defendant 3) forged a certificate through computer training provided by the sub-district administrative organization of Sa Kra Tiem and using such documents to apply for a sub-district employee position in Ratchaburi Province, is not supported by the fact that the sub-district administrative organization of Sa Kra Tiem had never provided computer training to the plaintiff (Defendant 3). Although Defendant 1 made an announcement using a sound amplification device to inform the public about the incident, the content of the announcement is in line with the findings of the investigation committee, which believed that Defendant 3 had committed forgery. Therefore, Defendant 1’s actions can be considered as expressing an opinion or conveying information in good faith to protect oneself or one’s interests according to the principles of justice and self-preservation. Consequently, Defendant 1 is not liable for defamation under Section 329 (1) of the Criminal Code.

guilty of defamation But the law exempts them from punishment.

Article 330 In a slander case, the accused proves that the accused slander is true and shall not be punished.
But it is forbidden to prove it. If the matter that is found to be defamatory is an imputation of a personal matter. And the proof will not be beneficial to the people.

Article 331 A party or his lawyer who expresses opinions or statements for the benefit of his case in court proceedings is not innocent.

Article 332 In a libel case in which the defendant is convicted, the court may orde
(1) Seize and destroy objects or parts of objects containing defamatory statements.
(2) Advertise the entire judgment. or parts of one or more newspapers one time or many times The defendant is the person who pays for the advertisement.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 2212/2536

The defendant sued to revoke the plaintiff from being the guardian of the province. incapacitated person and appointed the defendant as the guardian instead, describing the lawsuit as saying that the plaintiff gambled and was not suitable to be the province’s guardian. The said case therefore has an issue that must be considered whether the plaintiff or the defendant should be the guardian of the province. Therefore, Defendant 2’s act of stating that Defendant 3’s premises are a gambling den is to support Defendant 2’s case that Defendant 3 is not suitable to be a guardian. It can be considered as a statement made in the course of judicial proceedings for the benefit of their case and not as defamation under Section 331 of the Criminal Code.

offense of defamation It is an offense that can be compromised.

Article 333 The crimes listed in this paragraph are connivance crimes.
If the injured person in the offense of defamation dies before filing a complaint, the father, mother, spouse, or child of the injured person may file a complaint. and be considered an injured person

Computer Crime Act. Doctor 2550

Article 1 This Act is called the Computer Crimes Act. Doctor in 2007 “

Article 2 This Law shall come into force after the expiration of 30 days from the date of publication in the Gazette.

Article 3 of this law

“Computer system” means equipment or a set of computer equipment that is interconnected and operated together, with instructions, command sets, or any other means defined, and operational guidelines for the equipment or set of equipment to automatically process data.

“Computer data” means data, text, instructions, command sets, or any other items that exist within a computer system in a form that can be processed by the computer system. This also includes electronic data as governed by electronic transactions laws.

“Computer traffic data” refers to data related to the communication activities of a computer system, which may include information about the source, destination, route, timing, date, quantity, duration, type of service, or any other details relevant to the communication activities of that computer system.

“service provider” means

(1) Service providers for others in accessing the internet or in facilitating communication among them through computer systems, whether providing services in their own name or on behalf of or for the benefit of others.

(2) The service provider maintains computer data for the benefit of others.

“Service users” refers to service users of service providers, regardless of whether service fees are charged or not.

“Competent official” means a person appointed by the Minister to carry out this Act.

“Minister” means the Minister who oversees the execution of this Act.

Article 4 The Minister of Information and Communication Technology is authorized to maintain this Law and to issue ministerial regulations for the implementation of this Law.

Once published in the Gazette, the rules of the Ministry will apply.

Category 1

computer crime

Article 5: Anyone who accesses, without authorization, a computer system that has specific security measures in place, and such measures are not intended for them, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding ten thousand Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.

Article 6: Anyone who, with prior knowledge, discloses security measures for accessing a computer system that others have prepared specifically, and if such disclosure is made without authorization and is likely to cause harm to others, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding twenty thousand Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.

Article 4: Anyone who, without authorization, accesses computer data that is protected by specific security measures, and if such security measures are not intended for them, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding forty thousand Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.

Article 8: Whoever acts illegally by electronic means

To eavesdrop and intercept computer data of others being transmitted in a computer system, and if such computer data is not intended for public benefit or for the benefit of the general public, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding sixty thousand Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.

Article 9 Anyone who causes damage, destruction, alteration, modification, or addition, whether in whole or in part, to computer data of others without authorization, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.

According to Section 10, anyone who performs any act without authorization in order to suspend, delay, obstruct, or disrupt the operation of someone else’s computer system to the extent that it cannot function normally shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.

According to Section 11, anyone who sends computer data or electronic mail to another person while concealing or falsifying the source of the sent data, which disrupts the normal use of the other person’s computer system, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand Baht.

Article 12. If an offence specified in Article 9 or 10 is committed,

(1) stipulates that if someone causes harm to the public, whether the harm occurs immediately or in the future, and whether it occurs simultaneously or not, they shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht.

(2) states that if someone commits an act that is likely to cause harm to computer data or computer systems related to national security, public safety, economic stability, or public services, or if it is an act against computer data or computer systems intended for public benefit, they shall be liable to imprisonment for a term ranging from three years to fifteen years and a fine ranging from sixty thousand Baht to three hundred thousand Baht.

If an offence committed under subsection (2) leads to the death of another person, it is punishable by ten to twenty years’ imprisonment.

Section 13 states that anyone who sells or disseminates a set of instructions specifically prepared for use as a tool to commit offenses under Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, or Section 11 shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding twenty thousand Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.

Section 14 Whoever commits the following offenses: Must be punished with imprisonment not exceeding five years. or a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand baht or both

(1) Importing into a computer system computer data that is false in whole or in part or computer data that is false in part but presented as if it were true, with the intention to cause damage to others or the public.

(2) Importing into a computer system computer data that is false with the intention to cause damage to national security or to create panic among the public.

(3) Importing into a computer system any computer data related to offenses against national security or offenses involving conspiracy, as per the Criminal Code.

(4) Importing into a computer system any computer data that is obscene in nature and can be accessed by the general public.

(5) Disclosing or forwarding computer data knowing that it falls under the categories described in (1), (2), (3), or (4).

Article 15 states that any service provider who intentionally supports or consents to the commission of an offense under Article 14 in a computer system under their control shall be subject to the same penalties as the offender under Article 14.

Article 16 states that anyone who imports into a computer system accessible to the general public, computer data that displays an image of another person, and that image has been created, edited, added to, or modified electronically or by any other means in a manner likely to cause damage to the reputation, insult, or hatred toward that person, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding sixty thousand Baht, or both.

If the act described in the first paragraph (importing computer data in a manner likely to cause damage to a person’s reputation) is done in good faith, the person committing the act shall not be guilty of an offense under the first paragraph. However, if the injured party in the first paragraph dies before filing a complaint, the deceased’s father, mother, spouse, or child may file a complaint, and they shall be considered the injured party.

Section 17 Whoever commits an offense under this Act outside the Kingdom and

(1) If the offender is a Thai national and the government of the country where the offense occurred or the injured party has requested prosecution, or if

(2) If the offender is a foreigner, and the Thai government or a Thai individual is the injured party, and the injured party has requested prosecution, the offender must be punished within the Kingdom of Thailand.

Category 2

official

Under Article 18, in accordance with the provisions of Article 19, for the purpose of investigating and examining the case, in cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed under this Royal Decree, authorized officers have the following powers, but only to the extent necessary for the purpose of obtaining evidence related to the offense and identifying the offender

(1) Authorized officers have the power to issue inquiries or summon individuals related to offenses under this Royal Decree to provide oral statements, submit written explanations, or provide documents, information, or any other evidence in a comprehensible format when it is necessary for the purpose of investigating and gathering evidence related to computer-related offenses. This includes the authority to request information and cooperation from relevant individuals or entities involved in the case.

(2) Retrieve computer traffic data from service providers regarding communications. Through the computer system or from other related persons

(3) Authorized officers can issue orders to service providers to deliver information related to service users that must be retained according to Article 26 or that is under the possession or control of the service provider to the competent officers. This includes the authority to request user data, logs, records, or any other relevant information held by the service provider for the purpose of investigation and evidence gathering.

(4) Authorized officers can make copies of computer data, computer traffic data, or data from computer systems that are reasonably believed to have been involved in offenses under this Royal Decree. This applies even when the computer system is not in the possession of authorized officers. The purpose of this provision is to enable the collection of evidence related to computer-related offenses, even if the system is not under the immediate control of law enforcement.

(5) Authorized officers have the power to order individuals who possess or control computer data, computer devices, or equipment used to store computer data to provide such data or devices to law enforcement officers. This provision allows law enforcement to request individuals in possession or control of computer-related data or equipment to cooperate and provide access to such data or devices for investigative purposes.

(6) inspect or access computer systems computer information computer traffic information or equipment used to store computer data of any person which is evidence or may be used as evidence regarding the commission of a crime or to investigate the perpetrator and order that person to submit computer data, computer traffic data. Related information as necessary may also be provided.

(7) Decrypt any person’s computer data. or instruct persons involved in the encryption of computer data decrypt or cooperate with the authorities in decrypting such secrets.

(8) Seize or freeze computer systems only as necessary for the benefit of knowing the details. Details of the offense and offenders under this Act

According to Section 19, when using the authority as described in Sections 18 (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8), the official must submit a petition to the court with jurisdiction to obtain an order authorizing the official to proceed with the actions. The petition must specify credible reasons that someone has committed or is about to commit an offense under this Act, the necessity for using the authority, the nature of the offense, details about the equipment used in committing the offense, and the identity of the offender to the extent possible. The court should promptly consider the petition, and once the court issues an order authorizing the actions, the official can proceed in accordance with the court’s order.

According to Section 18 (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8), if there is an owner or possessor of the computer system present at the location, the official should provide a copy of the record to the owner or possessor as evidence. However, if there is no owner or possessor of the computer system at the location, the official should provide the copy of the record to the owner or possessor as soon as possible.

According to Section 18 (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8), the head of the executing officials should send a copy of the record detailing the actions taken and the reasons for those actions to the court within 48 hours from the time they start the operation. This record serves as evidence of the actions taken in accordance with these sections of the law.

Under Section 18 (4), the copying of computer data may only be carried out when there is a reasonable belief that an offense under this Act has been committed. Additionally, it must not impede the operation of the owner’s or possessor’s computer data beyond what is necessary. In other words, copying computer data should be done with reasonable suspicion of an offense and without causing unnecessary disruption to the owner’s or possessor’s computer operations.

In accordance with Section 18 (8), when seizing or attaching computer systems, apart from providing a copy of the seizure or attachment document to the owner or possessor as evidence, the authorized officer shall not keep the seized or attached items for more than thirty days. If it is necessary to keep them for a longer period, the officer shall submit a request to the court with jurisdiction to extend the seizure or attachment period. However, the court may grant an extension only once or multiple times, but not exceeding sixty days in total. When the necessity for seizure or attachment has ended or the specified time has elapsed, the authorized officer shall promptly return the seized or attached computer systems, as stipulated in the ministerial regulations.

Section 20 In cases where the commission of an offense under this Royal Decree involves making computer data widely accessible and the computer data may have a significant impact on the security of the Kingdom as defined in Section 2, Category 1, or Category 1/1 of the Penal Code, or may have characteristics that undermine the peace, order, or good morals of the people, an official, with the approval of a minister, may submit a petition along with evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to suspend the dissemination of such computer data.

In the event that the court orders the suspension of the dissemination of computer data as mentioned in the previous paragraph, the official may carry out the suspension of dissemination or order the service provider to do so.

Section 21 In the case where an official discovers that certain computer data contains a malicious set of instructions, the official may file a petition with a court having jurisdiction to request an order prohibiting the distribution or disclosure of such data, or to order the suspension, destruction, or alteration of the computer data. Alternatively, the official may impose conditions on its use, keep it in custody, or prevent its disclosure, as specified in the ministerial regulations.

The term “malicious set of instructions” in this context refers to a set of instructions that has the effect of causing damage, destruction, alteration, modification, interference, or incorrect operation of computer data, computer systems, or other sets of instructions as specified in the ministerial regulations, except for sets of instructions intended to protect or correct such sets of instructions as specified in the ministerial regulations.

Section 22 prohibits any official from disclosing or delivering computer data, computer traffic data, or user data obtained under Section 18 to any person.

Paragraph one shall not apply to acts for the benefit of legal proceedings against offenders under this Act, or for the benefit of legal proceedings against officials concerning the unauthorized exercise of their duties, or acts carried out pursuant to orders or authorizations from the court. Any official who violates paragraph one shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than three years, or a fine not exceeding sixty thousand Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.

Article 23 stipulates that any officer who, through negligence, causes others to become aware of computer data, computer traffic data, or user data obtained under Article 18 shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than one year, or a fine not exceeding twenty thousand Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.

Article 24 states that anyone who has prior knowledge of computer data, computer traffic data, or user data obtained by authorized officers under Article 18 and discloses that information to another person shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than two years, or a fine not exceeding forty thousand Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.

Article 25 states that data, computer data, or computer traffic data obtained by authorized officers in accordance with this Royal Decree shall be admissible as evidence in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or other relevant laws. However, this admissibility is subject to the condition that the data was not obtained through inducement, promise, threat, deception, or any other improper means.

Article 26 stipulates that service providers must retain computer traffic data for a period of not less than ninety days from the date the data enters the computer system. However, in exceptional cases and on a case-by-case basis, authorized officers may instruct service providers to retain traffic data for a period exceeding ninety days but not exceeding one year.

Service providers are required to collect and retain user data only to the extent necessary to identify the user from the start of service usage. They must retain this data for a period of not less than ninety days from the end of service usage.

Paragraph one applies to service providers of any type as determined by the Ministerial Regulation published in the Royal Gazette. If any service provider fails to comply with this article, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand baht.

Article 27 states that anyone who does not comply with the orders of the court or the officials issued under Article 18 or Article 20 or does not comply with the court orders under Article 21 shall be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand baht and a daily fine of not more than five thousand baht until compliance is achieved.

Article 28 of this Royal Decree states that the appointment of officials and officers under this Royal Decree shall be made by the minister from individuals with knowledge and expertise in computer systems and who possess the qualifications as specified by the minister.

Article 29 of this Royal Decree stipulates that officials and officers, including senior police officers, in the performance of their duties under this Royal Decree have the authority to accept complaints or receive accusations and are empowered to conduct investigations specifically for offenses under this Royal Decree, in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the law.

In the process of apprehension, control, search, investigation, and prosecution of offenses under this Royal Decree, the authorities primarily responsible are officers of the administrative or senior police ranks, or investigating officers under the Criminal Procedure Code. They shall coordinate with the responsible investigating officers to carry out their duties accordingly.

The Prime Minister, in his capacity as the overseer of the National Police Bureau and as a Minister, is responsible for

They have the joint authority to establish regulations regarding guidelines and procedures for conducting operations as outlined in Chapter Two.

Article 30 states that when performing their duties, government officials and employees must display their identification cards to individuals concerned. The format of these identification cards is determined by ministerial regulations published in the Royal Gazette. This article emphasizes the importance of government officials and employees carrying and displaying their official identification cards while carrying out their duties to facilitate proper identification and interactions with the public.

Cited source

  • ความผิดฐานหมิ่นประมาทและความผิดฐานดูหมิ่น. Available at: https://web2016.hrdi.or.th/InternalRules/Detail/1468 (Accessed: 19 November 2023).
  • บทความอาจารย์สุภาภรณ์.htm. Available at: https://www.stou.ac.th/thai/schools/sca/document (Accessed: 19 November 2023).
  • หมิ่นประมาทผู้ตาย. Available at: http://ofs101.ldd.go.th/LDDOFS/ofskm03/03/0303/2565/030325650033.pdf? (Accessed: 19 November 2023).
  • สืบค้นฎีกา. Available at: http://deka.supremecourt.or.th/ (Accessed: 19 November 2023).