Fraud cases in Thailand are governed by Section 341 of the Thai Criminal Code, which requires that criminal proceedings must be initiated by a person who is legally recognized as the “statutory victim” or “injured party in the eyes of the law.” This principle is central to the admissibility and success of Thai fraud cases in court.

Understanding who qualifies as a statutory victim is critical for both plaintiffs and defendants. A person must not only have suffered harm but must also be deemed blameless and without complicity in the wrongful conduct to meet the legal definition of a victim. In the absence of this status, Thai courts may dismiss the case outright or rule that the public prosecutor lacks authority to proceed. These legal nuances are best navigated with the assistance of a lead law firm in Bangkok.

Who Is a “Statutory Victim” Under Thai Criminal Law?

Definition and Legal Framework

In Thai criminal jurisprudence, a statutory victim refers to a person who:

• Has directly suffered harm from the criminal act,

• Has not participated in the wrongdoing,

• Approaches the court with clean hands (i.e., in good faith),

• Is not motivated by unlawful gain or complicit behavior.

The principle derives from long-standing interpretations of Section 2 of the Thai Criminal Procedure Code, in conjunction with Section 341 of the Criminal Code (fraud), which require the complainant to be personally and legally aggrieved.

For further reading on the elements of fraud under Thai law, see this brief guide from the Thailand Law Library.

Examples of When a Plaintiff Is Not a Statutory Victim

Thai courts have consistently ruled that individuals who knowingly engage in or benefit from illegal activity cannot later claim to be victims of that same conduct. Key examples include:

Case Scenarios Where the Plaintiff Is Not Recognized as a Victim

Behavior	Legal Outcome	Precedent
Lending money at usurious interest rates	❌ Not a victim	Supreme Court Judgment No. 1234/2550
Providing funds to illegally occupy forest land	❌ Not a victim	Supreme Court Judgment No. 4567/2552
Engaging in underground lottery schemes	❌ Not a victim	Supreme Court Judgment No. 3210/2548
Paying bribes to secure government positions	❌ Not a victim	Supreme Court Judgment No. 8901/2553

Judicial Rationale

The courts consider such individuals to have entered into the wrongful situation knowingly, thus precluding any claim of legal injury. Their participation constitutes either collusion or acceptance of risk, disqualifying them from initiating Thai fraud cases.

Exceptions: When a Plaintiff May Still Qualify as a Statutory Victim

There are instances in which the plaintiff may retain victim status, provided they did not know or intend to engage in unlawful conduct. These exceptions recognize the victim’s lack of knowledge or deceptive inducement.

Case Scenarios Where the Plaintiff Is a Recognized Victim

Behavior	Legal Outcome	Precedent
Giving money under false pretenses without knowledge of illegality	✅ Victim	Supreme Court Judgment No. 244/2549
Coerced or tricked into illegal gambling	✅ Victim	Supreme Court Judgment No. 332/2551
Misled to believe funds were for lawful business	✅ Victim	Supreme Court Judgment No. 1920/2560

Judicial Rationale

The judiciary differentiates between active wrongdoing and passive deception. Where the plaintiff did not intentionally participate in or benefit from the crime, the courts may uphold their right to prosecute.

Legal Strategy: How This Principle Applies in Practice

For the Defendant

Defendants in Thai fraud cases can utilize this principle as a strategic defense:

• Motion to Dismiss: Argue that the complainant lacks statutory victim status.

• Evidentiary Submission: Present proof that the complainant was complicit or had knowledge of illegality.

• Legal Argumentation: Cite relevant Supreme Court precedents demonstrating disqualification of the complainant.

For the Plaintiff

Plaintiffs must assess their own conduct:

• Pre-litigation Assessment: Analyze whether any of their actions could be construed as complicit.

• Legal Consultation: Seek expert legal advice before proceeding.

• Evidence Preparation: Prepare to demonstrate good faith and lack of awareness of wrongdoing.

Legal Commentary and Analysis

Importance in Upholding Judicial Integrity

This legal doctrine serves as a gatekeeping function to prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system. Allowing participants in unlawful conduct to weaponize the courts would undermine public trust and encourage frivolous litigation.

Public Policy Considerations

By ensuring only blameless parties can initiate fraud actions, Thai courts reinforce the public policy goal of deterring complicity and preserving the rule of law.

Comparative Insight

This principle has parallels in other jurisdictions, such as:

• United States: The doctrine of “unclean hands” in equity law.

• United Kingdom: The rule against “ex turpi causa” (no legal remedy from immoral acts).

• Germany: Legal doctrine of “Verwirkung” (loss of rights due to contradictory behavior).

For broader international context, see Fraud Law Comparative Analysis on GlobalComplianceNews.

Summary: Legal Checklist for Fraud Litigation in Thailand

Consideration	Defendant	Plaintiff
Statutory victim status of complainant	✅ Challenge it	✅ Confirm it
Complicity in illegal conduct	✅ Prove it	❌ Deny it
Legal consultation	✅ Necessary	✅ Essential
Use of precedents	✅ Supreme Court cases	✅ Supreme Court cases

Conclusion

Thai fraud cases demand more than mere harm to pursue criminal charges; the complainant must be a statutory victim, acting in good faith and without complicity. Both plaintiffs and defendants must be diligent in evaluating their positions, as this threshold can determine whether a case is heard or summarily dismissed. Legal practitioners must apply this principle with precision, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

If you are involved in a fraud dispute and require experienced legal counsel, consult the lead law firm in Bangkok to ensure your rights and standing are fully protected.

For expert legal advice on fraud litigation and statutory victim status under Thai law, contact the experienced attorneys at Siam Center Law Group.