Fraud the act of deceiving others by presenting false information or concealing the truth that should be disclosed in order to gain someone else’s property or induce others to act, withdraw, or destroy legal documents of rights.
According to Section 341 of the Thai Penal Code, anyone who, with fraudulent intent, deceives others by presenting false information or concealing the truth that should be disclosed, and by such deceit, acquires property from the deceived person or a third party, or causes the deceived person or a third party to withdraw or destroy documents of rights, 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.
Deception refers to using trickery to cause a misunderstanding, leading to bewilderment.
“To present false information” means to have a preexisting truth and compare it with another statement that does not align with the existing truth, thereby constituting false information.
“Property” refers to objects, both tangible and intangible, that may have value and can be owned, such as houses and land (tangible property) and copyrights and patents (intangible property). These are categorized into real estate and personal property.
An act that constitutes a wrongful act involving deception is an action that causes someone to misunderstand or make a crucial mistake. This can be done by presenting false information or concealing the truth that should be disclosed.
chief criminal
External components include:
Actor: Who
The act of deception involves presenting false information or concealing the true information that should be disclosed.
Karma: other people
The result of the action: It causes others to believe and transfer property rights to assets.
1. The perpetrator has taken the property. 2. There has been an act of withdrawal or destruction of property rights documents.
Internal components
1. Ordinary intention, as per Article 59, refers to an intentional act performed with awareness of the act itself. Simultaneously, the perpetrator intends the consequences or foresees the results of that act.
2.Special intent with dishonesty means performing an act with the purpose of gaining benefits that one is not entitled to.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 102/2485
Using deception to make a lease-purchase agreement for machinery and then pawning it on the same day is considered fraudulent and constitutes the offense of fraud because it demonstrates dishonest intent from the beginning.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 707/2516
The victim initially filed a fraud case, and later, a prosecutor filed a separate case related to the same incident. This constitutes a new case. The victim withdrew the previous case not as a complete dismissal but with the intention to join as a plaintiff in the case filed by the prosecutor. This does not qualify as a complete withdrawal of the case according to the meaning in the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 36. Therefore, the prosecutor still has the authority to file the case, and the victim retains the right to join as a co-plaintiff in the prosecutor’s case.
Taking the money from the victim, claiming it was for the purpose of giving it as a bribe to the police, and promising to repay it in the future for personal business purposes without making false statements or concealing existing truths at that time, even if the money was not actually used to bribe the police, constitutes a breach of contract rather than the crime of fraud.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2283/2565
The twelve buyers purchased land and houses in Project Village S.1, both Mr. Jumleoi and Mr. J. concealed the truth that Project Village S.1 was not allocated according to the law, and Mr. J. claimed that the project included a public parking lot. The twelve buyers paid the full amount and received the transfer of land and houses. Therefore, the money for the purchase of land and houses received by both Mr. Jumleoi and Mr. J. arose from the sale of land and houses, not from concealing the truth that Mr. Jumleoi was not authorized to allocate the land. Neither Mr. Jumleoi nor Mr. J. needed to notify all twelve buyers. Both Mr. Jumleoi and Mr. J. did not acquire any property from the twelve buyers because the land remained a public parking lot under the ownership of the local authority. The construction of a seven-story building on the public parking lot by both Mr. Jumleoi and Mr. J. is a contractual matter, and their actions do not constitute the crime of fraud under Section 341 of the Penal Code.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 282/2566
The co-plaintiffs believed, according to what the first defendant (Mr. Jumleoi) had deceived, and proceeded to transfer the ownership of the land along with the buildings, even though the transferee was not the first defendant (Mr. Jumleoi), who was the deceiver. However, the fact that the Land Department (ฐาน.) transferred the land and buildings, which resulted from the first defendant’s deception of the co-plaintiffs, constitutes obtaining property from the deceived party to create a document of right, according to Section 341 of the Penal Code. It does not involve the first defendant (Mr. Jumleoi) obtaining the payment for the land and buildings from the co-plaintiffs. Therefore, the first defendant (Mr. Jumleoi) must return the land along with the buildings that belong to the co-plaintiffs. If the first defendant (Mr. Jumleoi) does not return the land and buildings that belong to the co-plaintiffs, he must compensate the co-plaintiffs for their value.
Defraud the public
Defrauding the public is not determined by the number of people deceived but by the intention. If deception involves presenting false information or concealing the truth that should be disclosed and aims to make the general public believe in a way that is not specific to individuals, it constitutes the crime of defrauding the public.
Section 343 states that if an offense under Section 341 is committed by conveying false information to the public or by concealing the truth that should be disclosed to the public, the offender shall be subject to a maximum imprisonment of five years, a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.
If the offense described in the first paragraph is committed with the characteristics specified in Section 342 or any other section, the offender shall be subject to a minimum imprisonment of six months to a maximum of seven years, and a fine ranging from ten thousand baht to one hundred and forty thousand baht.
***In the case of the offense of deceiving the public, we must also consider the intention of the offender in deceiving someone else.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1867/2523
In the offense of deceiving the public under the Criminal Code Section 343, the crucial factor is not the number of victims deceived, but rather the significance lies in the intention to present false information to the public.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 596/2561
Inducing ten or more individuals, or at least ten individuals, to borrow money through advertising or announcements presented to the public, whether through mass media or in various locations, does not require both debtors to carry out such actions individually each time. It is sufficient for both debtors to collectively engage in deceptive messaging to some of the victims, resulting in the public’s belief and investment in both debtors, to constitute a successful offense. Debtor 2 will be jointly liable with Debtor 1 and Party. Or not? It’s not an important point.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 79/2564
The offense of deceiving the public by impersonating another person, as stipulated in Article 343, paragraph two, imposes penalties in ascending order based on the gravity of the committed offense, rather than committing multiple offenses under Article 90. It is a single, specific offense. This legal issue pertains to public order, even without any opposing party. The court has the authority to raise, review, and rectify it correctly according to the Criminal Procedure Code, Article 195, paragraph two, in conjunction with Article 225.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 47/2566
The offense of deceiving the public under Article 343, paragraph one of the Criminal Code can be a single offense or multiple offenses, depending on the factual circumstances of whether the offender intended to deceive on one occasion or multiple occasions. In cases where there is no direct evidence, the court must rely on the facts as described by the plaintiff in the complaint. In this case, both defendants jointly posted false messages to the general public through the Facebook application, inviting individuals to invest money with them, deceiving the victims into believing that they would receive significant returns. This resulted in the victims transferring money to the defendants on multiple occasions, as described in the separate narration of the complaint. In each count described by the plaintiff, the victims were deceived by the defendants and transferred money into the defendants’ bank deposit accounts. Although the transfers by the victims occurred multiple times, they were subsequent events resulting from the initial deception, which was not explicitly mentioned in the complaint that the defendants repeatedly posted false messages. Therefore, it must be considered that the defendants deceived the victims only once with the intention of obtaining money from them. Despite the different timeframes, it constitutes the same criminal offense.
Deception by impersonating someone else or taking advantage of someone’s intellectual or mental weakness constitutes the offense of fraud.
Impersonating another person or exploiting the intellectual or mental vulnerability of the deceived person, especially if they are a child or mentally weak, is an offense under Article 342. The punishment includes imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to one hundred thousand baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.
Impersonation, even if one does not have a real identity, is considered an offense under this article.
Exploiting the intellectual vulnerability of a deceived person who is a child means taking advantage of the fact that a child may not have the same level of intellectual maturity or discernment as an adult. The law seeks to protect such cases.
Exploiting the mental vulnerability of a deceived person refers to taking advantage of an individual who has a weak or impaired mental capacity, making them susceptible to deception. This can include individuals with cognitive weaknesses or mental illnesses who may be easily deceived.
Article 342: If in the commission of the offense of fraud, the offender
(1) Pretending to be someone else, or
(2) Exploiting the mental vulnerability of the deceived person, who is a child, or taking advantage of the mental weakness of the deceived person.
The offender 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.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 20/2546
The act of the debtor presenting themselves as someone else by using a distorted or unclear copy of the identity card of the creditor, which led the creditor to believe that the debtor was the true owner of the land according to the Tor Bor 3 Khor 2 form, and as a result, the creditor agreed to lend money to the debtor, constitutes the offense of deceiving others by impersonating someone else under the Criminal Code Section 342(1).
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3839/2526
In addition to stating in the beginning and end of the complaint that the debtor deceived the creditor by taking advantage of the creditor’s gullibility, intellectual disability, and mental weakness, the creditor also described in detail that the debtor claimed that a flowing iron could cure the illness the creditor was suffering from. It is understood that the mental weakness of the creditor was due to illness, and the term “gullibility, intellectual disability, and mental weakness” indicates that the creditor was easily deceived compared to a person with normal mental faculties. Therefore, the complaint against the debtor is complete under the Criminal Code Section 342(2) and the Code of Criminal Procedure Section 158(5).
Exploitation of labor
Section 344: Anyone who, with dishonesty, deceives ten or more individuals into performing any form of work for themselves or for others, without paying wages or compensation to those individuals, or by paying them lower wages or compensation than agreed upon, shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine of not more than sixty thousand baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1051/2510
According to the Penal Code Section 344, the offender must have the intention to benefit from the work performed by the individuals who have been deceived, without paying them wages or compensation.
When the case indicates that the offender deceived for the purpose of receiving money only, without deceiving them to perform work because there was no work to be done, it does not constitute an act for the purpose of benefiting from their labor according to Section 344. Therefore, the offender is not liable under this section.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1953/2506
The offense of cheating on labor wages according to Section 344 of the Criminal Code requires that the offender had a dishonest intent to deceive the victim at the time of their agreement to have the victim perform work without intending to pay the labor wages or intending to pay lower wages than agreed upon. Therefore, it is only considered a criminal offense if there was fraudulent intent by the offender at the time of the agreement. If there was no fraudulent intent at the time of the agreement, but a contractual dispute or breach of contract occurred later, it would be a civil matter, and it may not be charged as a criminal offense.
Service Fraud
Article 345: Whoever orders and consumes food or beverages, or stays in a hotel, knowing that they cannot pay for the cost of food, beverages, or accommodation, shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than three months or a fine of not more than five thousand Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.
Considerations
– The offender must have the intention not to pay from the beginning.
– Ordering or consuming is a continuous act at that time.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1686/2505
Article 345 pertains to the act of ordering and consuming food or beverages, and it involves continuous actions at that time. If someone contacts and agrees to order food in advance for consumption at a specific location, and they fail to pay, it would be a breach of contract rather than a violation of this article.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1077/2511
Article 345 of the Criminal Code refers to the act of ordering and consuming food or beverages with the understanding that payment will be made upon consumption, within the agreed-upon time and at the seller’s place of business. If someone, like “จำเลย” (a fictitious name), goes to get alcoholic beverages at a store on behalf of the injured party and promises to bring the money later, then later on, they provide the money. In this scenario, it is a matter of the injured party agreeing to extend credit to “จำเลย.” This situation does not fall under the purview of Article 345 of the Criminal Code.
Fraudulent Sale of Property by Deception
Article 346: Anyone who, in order to obtain the property of another person or of a third party, induces a person to sell, by fraudulent means, property, taking advantage of the fact that the person so induced has a weak mind or is of feeble intellect and cannot understand the essential nature of their actions, shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine of not more than forty thousand Baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.
Considerations
– It is not necessary to go as far as deception; merely inducing the person to the extent that they sell the property can still be considered an offense.
Insurance fraud
Article 347: Whoever, in order to benefit themselves or others from insurance, intentionally causes damage to property covered by insurance shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht, or both imprisonment and a fine.
Reference source
- สถาบันนิติธรรมาลัย. Available at: https://www.drthawip.com/criminalcode/1-53 (Accessed: 14 October 2023).
- ความผิดฐานฉ้อโกง. Available at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkajhttps://lib.doe.go.th/ebookdoc/020400002770_2.pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2023).
- ข้อความเท็จ หลอกลวง. Available at: https://dict.longdo.com/search/ (Accessed: 14 October 2023).
- ทรัพย์สิน. Available at: https://th.wikipedia.org/ (Accessed: 14 October 2023)
- สืบค้นฏีกา. Available at: http://deka.supremecourt.or.th/search/index (Accessed: 14 October 2023)
- การฉ้อโกงโดยแสดงตนเป็นคนอื่นหรืออาศัยความเบาปัญญา. Available at: https://www.xn--12ca3b1bb4cded8fvcua6a5l.com/2018/08/blog-post_15.html (Accessed: 23 October 2023).
- พจนานุกรม ฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน พ.ศ. 2554