Fact-checked by Barrister Garn Tuntasatityanond, Barrister-at-Law and licensed Thai lawyer (Thailand Lawyer Licence No. 3417/2553), on 7 October 2026.
A small payment for opening a bank account, handing over a SIM card, or completing a face scan can create years of legal and financial difficulty. In Thailand, a person who knowingly opens or allows another person to use an account for crime may face imprisonment, a substantial fine, banking restrictions, and an investigation into the movement of the proceeds.
However, having one’s name on an account that received fraudulent funds does not automatically prove guilt. Investigators and courts must still examine what the account holder did, whether the holder consented to another person’s use of the account, and whether the holder knew or ought to have known the account would be used for an offence.
What is a “mule account” in Thailand?
A mule account is a bank or electronic-money account used to receive, transfer, withdraw, or conceal money connected with unlawful activity. Criminal networks use layers of accounts to distance themselves from victims and make the money trail harder to follow. Such accounts may appear in online-sales scams, investment fraud, call-centre fraud, illegal gambling, and other technology-enabled offences.
Not every person whose identity appears on a mule account is in the same position. The law must distinguish between a person who voluntarily handed over an account and a person whose identity was stolen, whose account was taken over, or who was deceived without giving informed consent. The Bank of Thailand also explains this distinction in its public guidance on mule accounts and financial-fraud controls.
Opening or lending an account: the offence under Section 9
Section 9 of the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended, covers a person who opens or permits another person to use a deposit account or electronic-money account without a genuine intention to use it for that person’s own affairs or a business with which that person is involved, where the person knows or ought to know that the account will be used for a technology crime or another criminal offence. The current text also covers permitting another person to use one’s mobile telephone number for such purposes.
The maximum penalty under Section 9 is three years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to THB 300,000, or both. The applicable text must always be checked against the date of the alleged conduct. See the current consolidated Emergency Decree in the Office of the Council of State law database (Section 9) and the original Royal Gazette publication.
Payment is evidence that may be relevant, but it is not a separate condition that must exist in every case. Lending an account without receiving money may still create criminal exposure if the statutory elements—particularly consent and knowledge or constructive knowledge—are proved.
What does “knew or ought to have known” mean in practice?
A statement such as “I did not know they would use it for fraud” must be tested against the surrounding evidence. No single fact decides every case. Important questions usually include:
- How was the account holder recruited, and what explanation was given for needing the account?
- Did the account holder surrender an ATM card, passcode, SIM card, mobile phone, banking credentials, or face-verification access?
- Who actually controlled the account and initiated the transactions?
- Did the account holder receive compensation, withdraw cash, transfer funds onward, or retain any proceeds?
- Were several accounts opened or handed over in a short period?
- What did the account holder do after discovering unusual activity?
For example, voluntarily opening several accounts and giving a stranger the cards, passwords, and phone access presents a different evidential picture from identity theft or an account takeover without consent. This is an illustration of the evidence that may matter, not a conclusion that any particular person is guilty.
Before the 2023 Emergency Decree existed, Supreme Court Judgment No. 15630/2553 treated the voluntary disclosure of an account and ATM credentials to a stranger as highly unusual conduct when assessing a claimed lack of intent. That judgment concerned different offences and an earlier legal framework, so it is analogical guidance only, not direct authority on Sections 9 or 10.
Recruiters and account brokers face a separate offence under Section 10
Section 10 targets a person who procures, advertises, or publicises the buying, selling, renting, or lending of deposit accounts, electronic-money accounts, or other instruments specified by the law for use in committing an offence.
The penalty is two to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of THB 200,000 to THB 500,000, or both. A person who merely recruits account holders or posts advertisements cannot safely assume that being an “intermediary” avoids liability. See the current consolidated Emergency Decree in the Office of the Council of State law database (Section 10).
The 2025 amendment also addresses criminal use of personal data
The amended Decree added Section 11/2, which addresses the use, collection, possession, or disclosure of another person’s personal data for the purpose of committing a technology crime or another criminal offence. More serious exposure may arise where the data is bought, sold, exchanged, or otherwise used for benefit. This can be relevant when a scheme involves identity documents, selfies, face scans, SIM registration, or account-opening data. See the current consolidated Emergency Decree in the Office of the Council of State law database (Section 11/2).
Can all of the account holder’s bank accounts be restricted?
The consequences may extend beyond the account that first received suspicious funds. Thai financial-sector measures increasingly assess risk at the level of the person, not only the individual account. Depending on the risk classification and the institution’s assessment, measures may include restrictions on incoming or outgoing transfers, suspension of electronic channels, enhanced verification, or refusal to open a new account.
The Bank of Thailand’s current framework describes progressively stricter measures for higher-risk classifications and recognises that innocent customers can be affected by transaction-chain controls. See the Bank of Thailand’s official material on financial-fraud measures, its mule-account suspension framework, and its financial-fraud FAQ.
It is important to distinguish among:
- a restriction imposed by a financial institution under its risk controls;
- a temporary suspension of transactions under the technology-crime framework; and
- a formal freeze or seizure ordered by a legally authorised agency.
These measures have different legal bases and review procedures. A suspended account is not, by itself, a criminal conviction.
What should you do if someone has used your account?
- Contact the bank immediately. Ask the bank to prevent further access and record your report. Do not withdraw or forward suspicious funds at the recruiter’s direction.
- Preserve all evidence. Keep chat records, job advertisements, payment records, bank statements, delivery receipts, device information, and any evidence showing how cards, SIMs, or credentials changed hands. Do not delete or edit messages.
- Prepare a detailed timeline. Record when the account was opened, who made contact, the explanation you received, what was handed over, and when you first noticed irregular activity.
- Use official reporting channels. If you were impersonated or discover unauthorised use, contact the relevant bank and AOC 1441 promptly. The Bank of Thailand provides an official AOC 1441 information sheet.
- Do not ignore a police summons. Verify the summons, attend as required, and have a Thai lawyer review the allegation, transaction history, and supporting evidence before any important statement is given.
Frequently asked questions
Can I be at risk even if I was not paid?
Yes. Payment may be relevant evidence, but liability does not depend solely on receiving a fee. Consent, control, and whether the person knew or ought to have known the intended use are central issues.
If a victim’s money entered my account, am I automatically guilty?
No. The transaction is important evidence, but it does not remove the need to prove the legal elements. Investigators must examine the source of the funds, who controlled the account, the account holder’s conduct, and the surrounding communications.
Does an account suspension mean a court has found me guilty?
No. A banking or transaction-control measure is separate from a criminal judgment. It may still have serious practical consequences and should be addressed promptly with evidence.
Will closing the account end the problem?
No. Closing an account does not erase earlier transactions or communications. Preserve the records and confirm the status of the matter with the bank and any investigating agency.
Think before handing over an account, SIM, or face scan
If someone offers money in exchange for a bank account, ATM card, SIM card, phone access, password, or face verification, ask why that person cannot use an account in their own name. A small fee can be outweighed by criminal proceedings, the burden of explaining transactions, and long-term restrictions on everyday financial services.
If the situation has already occurred, the most useful first steps are to stop further access, preserve the evidence, notify the bank, and obtain legal advice based on the exact facts.
This article provides general information only. Criminal liability and the appropriate legal strategy depend on the facts, evidence, date of the alleged conduct, and the law applicable at that time.
