During 2026, our law firm in Thailand Herrera and Partners H&P represented different private clients in cases related to misappropriation and economic crimes. Based on the experience of our litigation lawyers at our Bangkok law firm, we have prepared a summary of the key aspects of this type of offences.
Under Thai criminal law, misappropriation and fraudulent concealment of assets are distinct offences, although certain factual circumstances may give rise to an overlap between them. The appropriate offence depends primarily on the nature of the property, the offender’s relationship with the property, the manner in which the property was dealt with, and the dishonest intention behind the conduct.
Misappropriation
Under Section 352 of the Thai Criminal Code, misappropriation occurs where a person who has possession of property belonging to another person, or in which another person has a co-ownership interest, dishonestly appropriates such property for themselves or for a third person. The key feature of this offence is that the offender must already have possession of the property before subsequently treating or dealing with it as his or her own, or for the benefit of another person.
Accordingly, misappropriation is different from theft, where the offender takes property from another person’s possession. In a misappropriation case, the initial possession of the property is not necessarily wrongful; rather, the criminal conduct arises when the person subsequently converts or appropriates the property with dishonest intent. Therefore, in determining whether conduct constitutes misappropriation, it is necessary to consider not only the ownership of the property but also who had possession or control of the property at the relevant time and whether the subsequent conduct clearly demonstrates an intention to appropriate it.
Fraudulent Concealment of Assets
The term “fraudulent concealment of assets” does not constitute a specific offence under a single provision of the Thai Criminal Code. Depending on the circumstances, the conduct may fall within the offence of fraud under Section 341 or fraudulent acts against creditors under Section 350.
Under Section 341, fraud may arise where a person dishonestly deceives another by asserting a false statement or by concealing a fact that should be disclosed, and such deception results in the offender obtaining property from the deceived person or a third person, or causing the deceived person or a third person to make, withdraw, or destroy a document of title. Therefore, mere concealment of information does not automatically constitute fraud. The concealment must amount to deception and must result in one of the consequences specified by law.
Section 350, on the other hand, specifically addresses conduct intended to defeat a creditor’s ability to obtain payment. The offence may arise where a debtor removes, conceals, or transfers property to another person, or falsely creates a debt against themselves, for the purpose of preventing a creditor from receiving all or part of the debt, where the creditor has exercised or will exercise a claim through court proceedings. The dishonest purpose behind the disposition or concealment of the assets is therefore a central consideration.
In practice, the distinction between these offences should be assessed carefully based on the factual circumstances of each case. Misappropriation primarily concerns the dishonest conversion of property that is already in the offender’s possession, whereas fraudulent conduct involving the concealment or transfer of assets may concern the use of deception or the deliberate removal or concealment of assets to cause another person, particularly a creditor, to suffer a loss.
It is also important to distinguish a criminal offence from a mere civil dispute. A failure to repay a debt, a breach of contract, or the failure to perform a contractual obligation does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. There must be conduct satisfying the specific statutory elements of the relevant offence, together with the requisite dishonest intention.
The distinction between these offences should be assessed based on the nature of the underlying transaction and the subsequent conduct concerning the property. A debt, breach of contract, or failure to repay money does not, by itself, constitute a criminal offence. Criminal liability requires the conduct to satisfy the statutory elements of the relevant offence and to be accompanied by the requisite dishonest intention.
For misappropriation, the key consideration is whether the offender was lawfully in possession of property belonging to another and subsequently dishonestly appropriated it for themselves or a third party. Where ownership of the property has already been transferred to the recipient, a subsequent failure to make payment would generally be a civil matter unless additional facts establish a separate criminal offence.
In relation to fraudulent concealment or disposition of assets, the purpose and circumstances of the transaction are particularly important. The mere transfer or disposal of assets does not automatically constitute an offence. Under Section 350, the relevant conduct must be undertaken for the purpose of preventing a creditor from receiving payment and must satisfy the other statutory requirements.
Accordingly, the assessment should focus on the substance of the conduct, including the ownership and possession of the property, the nature and circumstances of the transaction, the parties’ intentions, the timing and purpose of any transfer or concealment, and the offender’s control over the property. The facts should be considered as a whole to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the conduct goes beyond a civil dispute and satisfies the specific elements and requirements for criminal liability under the Thai Criminal Code.
If you need a legal consultation regarding a misappropriation case in Thailand, please contact our Bangkok litigators and attorneys at info@herrera-partners.com
