Key Takeaways
- Fraud and embezzlement are "compoundable offences" in Thailand, and the complaint deadline is only three months. Under Section 96 of the Thai Criminal Code, if no complaint is filed within three months from the day the victim knows both the offence and the offender, the right to prosecute is extinguished — permanently.
- This is the trap most foreign companies fall into. Internal audit first, then the accountants, then the bank records, and only then a lawyer — by the time the process is finished, the deadline has often passed.
- The line between theft and embezzlement decides whether you have three months. An employee who lawfully held the property and misappropriated it commits embezzlement (Section 352 — three-month limit applies); one who took property never entrusted to them commits theft (Section 334 — no three-month limit).
- A victim can file a criminal case directly with the court as a private prosecution, without going through the police or the public prosecutor — subject to a preliminary examination (Sections 162 and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
- Civil damages can be claimed within the criminal proceedings (Section 44/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code), without filing a separate civil action.
- Settlement extinguishes the case. That gives a criminal complaint real negotiating power in commercial disputes — but it also means a poorly handled negotiation can be treated as a waiver of your complaint.
The owner of a foreign-invested factory in Chonburi discovered that the finance manager's accounts did not add up. His first move was to bring in accountants — six weeks. Then he pulled the bank records — three more weeks. Once the amount was confirmed, a shareholders' meeting decided how to handle it — another two weeks. Only then did he come to a lawyer.
More than four months in total.
By then, under Thai law, it was no longer possible to bring a criminal complaint at all.
This is not a hypothetical. Section 96 of the Thai Criminal Code provides that for compoundable offences, a complaint must be filed within three months from the day the injured person knows of the offence and knows the identity of the offender. Once the deadline passes, the right to prosecute is extinguished and cannot be revived.
And fraud and embezzlement — the two property offences foreign businesses in Thailand encounter most often — are both compoundable offences.
This article explains how to identify the offence, protect the deadline, choose the right procedure, and preserve your chances of actually recovering the money.
1. First, Identify the Offence
The offence determines the procedure, the deadline, and the strategy. Everything starts here.
| Offence | Section (Criminal Code) | Elements | Penalty | Compoundable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud | Section 341 | deceiving a person by false statement or concealment of facts, causing them to hand over property | up to 3 years' imprisonment and/or a fine up to THB 60,000 | Yes |
| Public fraud | Section 343 | deception practised on the general public (e.g. online investment scams) | up to 5 years' imprisonment and/or a fine up to THB 100,000 | No |
| Embezzlement | Section 352 | a person in possession of another's property dishonestly converts it to their own or a third party's benefit | up to 3 years' imprisonment and/or a fine up to THB 60,000 | Yes |
| Embezzlement by a person entrusted with property (breach of trust) | Section 353 | a person entrusted with managing another's property acts contrary to that duty, causing damage | up to 3 years' imprisonment and/or a fine up to THB 60,000 | Yes |
| Aggravated embezzlement | Section 354 | committed by an estate administrator appointed by will or court order, or in a professional capacity commanding public trust | up to 5 years' imprisonment and/or a fine up to THB 100,000 | Yes |
| Theft | Section 334 and following | taking property belonging to another | up to 3 years' imprisonment and/or a fine up to THB 60,000 | No |
The three situations foreign companies encounter most often
Situation one: a business partner takes payment and never delivers, or induces an investment with false information — usually fraud under Section 341.
Situation two: a finance or procurement employee diverts company funds or inflates invoices — if the employee lawfully held the funds by virtue of their duties, this is embezzlement under Section 352. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 4181/2542, an employee who diverted company funds for personal use was convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
Situation three: a director or manager transfers company funds to a personal account without authority — Section 353, misappropriation by a person entrusted with managing the company's property.
2. Three Months: The Most Important Section of This Article
Under Section 96 of the Thai Criminal Code, the victim of a compoundable offence must file a complaint within three months from the day they know of the offence and know the identity of the offender.
Both conditions must be met before the clock starts. Knowing that money is missing but not who took it does not start the period; once the person is identified, time begins to run.
The consequence of missing the deadline is that the right to prosecute is permanently extinguished — no matter how large the amount, how complete the evidence, or how egregious the conduct.
Why foreign companies miss it
Three months is not long inside a corporate process. The steps that typically consume the time:
- Engaging accountants to confirm the amount and scope
- Pulling bank statements and internal records
- Reporting to headquarters and waiting for a decision
- Internal debate about whether to "leave room" and talk privately first
- Finding a lawyer, comparing fees, signing the engagement
By the time these five steps are done, three months have usually passed.
The right approach
Start the legal clock assessment in the same week you discover the irregularity — do not wait until the facts are fully established before seeing a lawyer.
Concretely: while the internal audit is still running, a lawyer should be working in parallel to identify the likely offences, confirm when the three-month period started, and, where necessary, file the complaint first to preserve the deadline. Evidence can be supplemented after a complaint is filed; a missed deadline cannot be repaired.
Preserving the deadline and establishing the facts can — and should — happen at the same time.
3. Theft vs. Embezzlement: The Line That Decides Whether You Have Three Months
The distinction exists in most legal systems, but in Thailand the consequences are sharper, because it directly determines whether the three-month limit applies.
The test: did the offender lawfully possess the property at the time they took it?
- Already in lawful possession → embezzlement (Section 352), compoundable, three-month deadline
- Example: a finance officer who handles the company's accounts transfers funds to a personal account
- Example: a salesperson collects payment from customers and never remits it
- Example: a warehouse keeper sells off inventory in their custody
- Never entrusted with the property → theft (Section 334 and following), not compoundable, no three-month limit
- Example: an employee enters the office at night and takes cash
- Example: an employee with no custody of the equipment removes it without authority
Where the classification is uncertain, plan your timeline as if the three-month embezzlement deadline applies. It is the only safe assumption — if the case turns out to be theft, acting early costs you nothing; if you assume theft and it turns out to be embezzlement, the case is simply gone.
4. Two Routes: Report to the Police, or Sue Directly in Court
Thai law gives the victim two ways to set the criminal process in motion — one of the most significant differences from many other jurisdictions.
| Police route (public prosecution) | Private prosecution | |
|---|---|---|
| Initiation | file a complaint with the police; the inquiry officer investigates and forwards the case to the public prosecutor | the victim files directly with the court as plaintiff |
| Control | the prosecutor decides whether to indict | the victim drives the case |
| Cost | lower | higher (you bear your own lawyers' fees and court costs) |
| Evidence burden | the police gather evidence | you must assemble all of it yourself |
| Preliminary step | none | preliminary examination required |
| Speed | depends on the station's caseload | generally more controllable |
When to choose private prosecution
The value of a private prosecution is control — over both the case and the timetable. Where the case involves foreigners, the amount is not large enough to command police priority, or you need to create negotiating pressure at a specific moment, a private prosecution is often the more efficient route.
The price is that you must complete the entire evidentiary work yourself and pass the preliminary examination.
The preliminary examination (ไต่สวนมูลฟ้อง)
Once a private prosecution is accepted for filing, the court schedules a preliminary examination, typically about three months after filing. The plaintiff must present prima facie evidence that the defendant may have committed the offence charged (Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code). The defendant may have counsel attend and cross-examine (Section 165).
The standard of proof at this stage is lower than at trial — it need not reach proof beyond reasonable doubt. About a month after the examination, the court rules on whether to accept the case.
- Case accepted: proceedings continue and the defendant cannot appeal the ruling; if the defendant fails to appear, the court may issue a summons or an arrest warrant.
- Case dismissed: the plaintiff may appeal to the Court of Appeal (Sections 169 and 170).
Know the risk of abusive filing
Under Section 161/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the court finds that a complaint was filed in bad faith, distorts the facts, or is intended to harass, it will dismiss the case — and the case cannot be refiled.
The consequences go beyond losing the case: the defendant may sue for malicious prosecution, and the ruling will follow you into any later litigation as a credibility problem.
A private prosecution is not a "sue first, think later" tool. Filing on thin evidence can turn a negotiable dispute into a position that works against you.
5. Claiming Damages Inside the Criminal Case
Under Sections 40 and 44/1 of the Thai Criminal Procedure Code, the victim may claim civil compensation within the criminal proceedings, depending on how the criminal case was initiated.
Where the public prosecutor brings the case, Section 44/1 allows the victim to claim, within the criminal proceedings, compensation for injury to body, mind, liberty, reputation, or property caused by the offence.
Where the victim brings a private prosecution, Section 40 allows a civil claim to be joined to the criminal case for damage caused by the offence.
For foreign businesses this is a real efficiency advantage — criminal liability and civil recovery can, in principle, be handled in one set of proceedings, without a separate civil action.
Two caveats. First, a civil claim may still involve court fees and related procedural costs. Second, even a winning judgment is only worth what the defendant can pay — if they have no assets in Thailand, actual recovery may be difficult. Before launching the criminal process, assess the other side's asset position in Thailand and plan any civil attachment and enforcement measures in parallel.
6. Settlement as Strategy — and as Trap
Because these offences are compoundable, a criminal complaint carries real negotiating force in commercial disputes. Under Section 39(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a settlement between the parties extinguishes the right to prosecute.
This cuts both ways.
The upside: the pressure of criminal liability is usually far greater than the pressure of a civil claim. Debts that sat unresolved in civil deadlock for years are often paid within weeks of a criminal complaint being filed.
The danger: a poorly handled negotiation can be treated as a waiver of your complaint. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 353/2532, the victim negotiated with the offender and then failed to object or report the outcome to the inquiry officer; the court held this showed no intention to pursue criminal liability and ruled the right to prosecute extinguished under Section 39(2) — even though no written settlement had been signed.
Practical rule: before filing and throughout any negotiation, put every communication with the other side on record, expressly reserving your right to criminal prosecution. Oral negotiation is especially dangerous — the other side may later claim a settlement was reached.
7. The Four Evidence Mistakes Foreign Companies Make
One: firing the employee first, thinking about the complaint later.
Under the Thai Labour Protection Act, a dismissal that does not follow the statutory procedure can trigger a labour claim for severance and unfair dismissal compensation. The more practical problem: once the employee is gone, obtaining their computer, communications, and internal documents becomes far harder.
Complete evidence preservation before taking any personnel action.
Two: internal documents with no Thai version.
A foreign company's internal records — vouchers, approval trails, correspondence — are usually in Chinese, English, or another language. To be used in a Thai court they must be translated and certified as required. That takes time; plan for it early rather than on the eve of the hearing.
Three: electronic evidence not properly preserved.
Transfer records, chat messages, and system access logs are the core evidence in these cases. Screenshots have limited evidentiary weight — preserve the original data and document how it was obtained. Unauthorized access to company systems may also constitute an offence under the Computer Crime Act.
Four: assuming you can sue back home.
This is the most dangerous misconception. Most home jurisdictions have no — or only very limited — criminal jurisdiction over ordinary fraud or embezzlement committed abroad. Even if the offender is your own national and has already returned home, the courts there will generally not take the case.
Which means: this case can only be handled in Thailand — and only within three months.
8. Cross-Border Pursuit and Asset Preservation
If the offender has already left Thailand, the case can still proceed — but it gets harder.
Extradition: Thailand handles extradition under the Extradition Act B.E. 2551, applying the double-criminality principle — the conduct must be an offence in both Thailand and the requesting state. In practice, extradition has significant limitations depending on the states involved.
Proceedings in absentia: if the defendant fails to appear, the court may issue an arrest warrant, and the case resumes once the defendant is brought before the court. The case does not die — it waits. The moment the person re-enters Thailand, they can be arrested. For business people who travel to Thailand regularly, this has real teeth.
Asset preservation: if the other side still has assets in Thailand, assess provisional attachment in civil proceedings in parallel. The criminal case does not automatically freeze assets — the two tracks must be planned together.
9. The Order of Action
If you have discovered an irregularity, proceed in this order:
Week one: identify the likely offences and when the three-month period started. Begin evidence preservation immediately, especially electronic data and physical documents the person can still reach.
Weeks two to four: complete the basic evidence review and decide between the police route and private prosecution. If the deadline is tight, file the complaint first to preserve it and supplement the evidence afterwards.
In parallel: assess the other side's assets in Thailand and decide whether civil preservation measures are needed.
Avoid: negotiating privately without a written record; taking personnel action before evidence is preserved; and waiting for the internal investigation to finish before seeking legal advice.
Related Reading
- 泰國詐欺與員工侵占 2026：台商提起刑事告訴的三個月關鍵期（中文版 · Louis Group）
- Can Foreigners Control Land in Thailand? Nominee Structures and Their Risks
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
How long do I have to file a criminal complaint for fraud in Thailand?
For compoundable offences, three months. Under Section 96 of the Thai Criminal Code, the period runs from the day the victim knows of the offence and knows the offender's identity; once it lapses, the right to prosecute is permanently extinguished. Ordinary fraud (Section 341) and embezzlement (Section 352) are both compoundable, so both are subject to the three-month limit. The exception is public fraud under Section 343 (deception of the general public), which is not compoundable and follows the ordinary prescription periods. In practice, foreign companies often lose the deadline to internal auditing — assess the legal timeline in the same week you discover the problem, before all the facts are in.
Can a company file a criminal complaint against an employee who embezzled company funds in Thailand?
Yes. If the employee lawfully held the property by virtue of their duties and dishonestly converted it, that is embezzlement under Section 352 of the Criminal Code, punishable by up to three years' imprisonment and/or a fine up to THB 60,000. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 4181/2542, an employee who diverted company funds for personal use was convicted and sentenced to two years. Where the offender is a director or manager entrusted with managing company property, Section 353 applies instead. Note that both are compoundable offences with a three-month complaint deadline, and evidence should be secured before any dismissal or other personnel action.
What is the difference between theft and embezzlement in Thailand, and why does it matter?
The test is whether the offender lawfully possessed the property when they took it. Lawful possession followed by conversion is embezzlement (Section 352) — compoundable, three-month deadline. Taking property never entrusted to them is theft (Section 334 and following) — not compoundable, no three-month limit. The practical stakes are the deadline: if you prepare on a theft timeline and the court characterizes the conduct as embezzlement, the case is simply extinguished. When the classification is unclear, always plan against the three-month embezzlement deadline.
Do I have to go through the Thai police, or can I sue directly in court?
You can file a private prosecution directly with the court — Thai law gives victims this right, without going through the police or the public prosecutor. The advantages are control over the case and the timetable; the price is that you must gather all the evidence yourself and pass a preliminary examination, presenting prima facie evidence that the defendant may have committed the offence (Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code), with defence counsel entitled to cross-examine (Section 165). Beware Section 161/1: a complaint found to be malicious, fact-distorting, or harassing will be dismissed with no refiling — and may expose you to a malicious prosecution claim.
Can I claim compensation in the same criminal case?
Yes, and the applicable provision depends on how the case was brought. Where the public prosecutor brings the case, Section 44/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code lets the victim claim compensation within the criminal proceedings for injury to body, mind, liberty, reputation, or property — no separate civil action needed. Where the victim brings a private prosecution, Section 40 allows the civil claim to be joined to the criminal case. Bear in mind that court fees may apply, and that a judgment is only as good as the defendant's assets — assess their asset position in Thailand before you start, and consider civil preservation measures in parallel.
The offender has left Thailand. Is the case over?
No. If the defendant fails to appear, the court may issue an arrest warrant and the case waits — it resumes when the defendant is brought before the court, which can happen the moment they re-enter Thailand. Extradition is governed by the Extradition Act B.E. 2551 on a double-criminality basis, though its practical availability depends on the states involved. If the offender still holds assets in Thailand, provisional civil attachment should be assessed in parallel, because the criminal case itself does not freeze assets.
I already negotiated with the other side. Can I still file a criminal complaint?
Possibly not — this is one of the easiest ways to lose the case. Under Section 39(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a settlement extinguishes the right to prosecute. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 353/2532, a victim who negotiated and then failed to object or report the outcome to the inquiry officer was held to have shown no intention to pursue criminal liability — the right to prosecute was extinguished even without any written settlement. During any negotiation, keep every communication in writing and expressly reserve your right to criminal prosecution; avoid purely oral talks.
In property crime cases in Thailand, the outcome usually turns not on how complete your evidence is, but on which week you start acting.
Three months is a tight window for any corporate process, and there is no remedy once it passes. At the same time, evidence preservation, personnel decisions, and negotiation strategy have to move in a coordinated order — get the order wrong, and even a complaint filed in time can arrive without its best evidence, or after the right to prosecute has been inadvertently waived.
Louis & Partners Thailand, a member of Louis Group with offices in Bangkok and Chonburi, handles Thai criminal matters through Thai-qualified lawyers, working alongside the group's lawyers in Taiwan for cross-border aspects. We assist foreign businesses with offence assessment and deadline analysis in fraud and embezzlement cases, evidence preservation and electronic data handling, police complaints and private prosecutions, civil claims within criminal proceedings, settlement negotiation and written terms, and parallel asset investigation and civil preservation planning.
If you have discovered an irregularity, contact us early — in these cases, the room to act shrinks quickly.
Author: Sopon Sirimongkolrat, Thai-qualified lawyer and notarial attorney; Founder, Louis & Partners Thailand.
This article is general legal information and does not constitute legal advice on any specific case. Outcomes depend on the specific facts, the evidence, the characterization of the offence, and the law in force at the relevant time. For actual matters, consult a Thai-qualified lawyer and rely on the latest positions of the Thai authorities and courts.