Our Practice Areas
The Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases (Thailand)
Corruption and misconduct cases are a special category of criminal offense with profound impacts on public trust, economic stability, and national development. Consequently, handling such cases requires a specialized legal mechanism: The Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases. This court was established specifically to adjudicate cases involving the abuse of power by public officials in Thailand.
This article serves as a comprehensive guide for two key groups: private citizens who have been harmed by corrupt acts and wish to seek justice through the courts, and public officials who face allegations and must prepare to defend their rights and professional integrity.
At JIRAWAT & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE, we recognize that corruption and misconduct cases operate under procedures and legal nuances distinct from general criminal law. A systematic approach to case preparation and a deep understanding of this specialized court’s proceedings are therefore essential.
Why a Specialized Criminal Court for Corruption? Philosophy & Governing Laws
The creation of the Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases was not merely an administrative expansion but a significant reform of the justice system aimed at tackling corruption more effectively.
The rationale for establishing this specialized court is rooted in the need to address the growing complexity and severe damage caused by corruption. The primary objectives behind its formation are:
- Expertise: Corruption cases often involve intricate public law, procurement regulations, complex financial records, and official administrative procedures. A specialized court with judges possessing direct knowledge of these areas ensures more accurate and just rulings.
- Efficiency and Speed: A dedicated court streamlines the judicial process for these complex cases, preventing them from languishing in the general criminal court system and thereby delivering swifter justice.
- Standardization: A specialized bench fosters a consistent body of case law and judicial precedent, leading to greater clarity and predictability in the application of anti-corruption laws.
Policy Rationale for a Specialized Bench
Key Applicable Statutes
Proceedings in the Corruption Court are governed by a framework of three interconnected core laws:
- Act on the Establishment of and Procedure for Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases, B.E. 2559 (2016): This is the foundational law that created the court, defining its structure, jurisdiction, and composition.
- Act on Criminal Procedure for Persons Holding Political Positions, B.E. 2559 (2016) (often referred to as the Procedure Act for Corruption Cases): This act sets out the unique procedural rules for the court, most notably mandating the use of an “inquisitorial system.”
- Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E. 2561 (2018): This law empowers the primary investigative body, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), to investigate and issue findings of fault, which often serve as the basis for cases brought before the court.
Types of Cases under the Court's Jurisdiction (Categorized by Offense)
1. Offenses Relating to Malfeasance in Office and Abuse of Power
This is the most common category of cases, primarily based on Title 2, Offenses of Malfeasance in Office, of the Thai Penal Code.
- Malfeasance or Non-feasance in Office (Section 157): This is a foundational offense for the court, covering instances where an official wrongfully exercises or neglects their duties, causing injury to another person.
- Example: A municipal officer unreasonably refuses to issue a construction permit; a police officer refuses to accept a criminal complaint; a land officer improperly delays the registration of property rights.
- Abuse of Power for Corrupt Purposes (Section 148): An official uses their authority to coerce or induce another person to deliver property or benefits.
- Example: A revenue officer threatens to inflate a tax assessment unless an extra payment is made.
- Embezzlement of State Property (Section 147): An official with the duty to purchase, make, manage, or maintain any property embezzles that property for themselves or others.
Example: A supply officer takes government property for personal use; a school director embezzles funds intended for student lunches.
2. Bribery-Related Offenses
- Official Demanding or Accepting a Bribe (Section 149): A state official demands or accepts money or other benefits in exchange for performing or refraining from performing an act within their official capacity.
- Example: A police officer accepts money in exchange for not pursuing a criminal case; an industrial works official accepts payment from a business to issue a non-compliant license.
- Giving a Bribe to an Official (Section 144): A private citizen or entity gives a bribe to an official to induce them to act improperly.
Example: A construction contractor gives money to an inspection committee to approve substandard work.
3. Offenses in Public Procurement and Bidding
- Offenses under the Act on Offenses Relating to the Submission of Bids to State Agencies, B.E. 2542 (1999) (the “Anti-Bidding Collusion Act”):
Example: A state official colludes with a private company to fix the specifications for a procurement project; a group of private companies collude on bids (bid-rigging) to ensure a pre-determined winner, with assistance from an official.
4. Cases Related to Constitutional Independent Organizations
- False Declaration or Concealment of Assets and Liabilities: Cases where political office holders or high-ranking officials intentionally fail to declare their assets to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).
- Unusual Wealth Cases: Cases where the NACC finds that a state official has acquired an unusual amount of wealth that cannot be explained, and the Attorney General files a petition to have the assets forfeited to the state.
5. Money Laundering Offenses Linked to Corruption
- Cases where an official or related person launders money or assets obtained from corruption to conceal their origin.
Example: Using bribe money to purchase real estate in another person’s name; transferring embezzled funds overseas.
6. Cases Where Private Individuals are Principals with Support from State Officials
- Cases where a private individual is the main perpetrator, but the offense could not have been completed without the assistance of a state official, bringing the case under the court’s jurisdiction.
Example: A case of illegal encroachment on a national forest reserve, where a forestry official assists by issuing false documents or refraining from making arrests.
For Citizens: How to File a Case Against Public Officials
Citizens who are direct victims of corrupt acts by public officials are not powerless. Thai law provides a direct path for them to initiate legal action and seek justice.
Who Has Standing to File?
Under Thai law, a person who has suffered direct harm from the criminal act of a public official, known as an “injured party” (ผู้เสียหาย), has the legal standing to file a case directly with the Corruption Court. However, given the complexity of the legal drafting and procedural requirements, this action must be undertaken through a qualified lawyer.
Preparing and Collecting Evidence Before Filing
The success of a corruption case hinges on the strength of its evidence. Thorough preparation before filing is critical to persuading the court to accept the case for consideration. A strong complaint must “indicate the evidence with sufficient clarity” to illustrate the alleged wrongdoing. Key types of evidence include:
- Documentary Evidence: Procurement contracts, official appointment or transfer orders, meeting minutes, financial statements, official emails.
- Witness Testimony: Statements from individuals with direct knowledge of the events or the processes where corruption occurred.
- Physical and Digital Evidence: Photographs, video or audio recordings, computer logs, and digital metadata.
Filing Through a Specialist Lawyer
The process of filing a case as an injured party involves several key stages:
- Drafting the Complaint (คำฟ้อง): A lawyer drafts a formal complaint detailing the facts, the alleged criminal conduct of the public official (the defendant), and all supporting evidence, ensuring it aligns with the legal elements of the offense.
- Filing with the Court: The complaint and all accompanying documents are filed with the appropriate Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases.
- Indictment Review (ไต่สวนมูลฟ้อง): This stage is the most unique aspect of the court’s procedure. Unlike in general criminal cases, the court employs an “inquisitorial system.”
Understanding the “Inquisitorial System”: A Key to Corruption Cases
In most Thai criminal courts, an “adversarial system” is used, where the judge acts as a neutral referee, listening to evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense and then ruling on which side has a stronger case.3
However, the law governing the Corruption Court mandates an “inquisitorial system”. This means the court takes an active, investigative role in seeking the truth. The judge is not a passive observer but actively examines evidence and can call for more information, assisted by dedicated “case officers” (เจ้าพนักงานคดี).
This procedural difference has profound strategic implications, as shown in the table below:
Feature | Inquisitorial System (Corruption Cases) | Adversarial System (General Criminal Cases) |
|---|---|---|
Role of the Judge | Active investigator seeking the truth | Neutral referee |
Evidence Presentation | Plaintiff presents evidence to guide the court's own inquiry | Opposing parties present evidence to persuade the court |
Lawyer's Role | To assist and facilitate the court's search for the truth | To advocate for the client's best interests in a competitive setting |
Primary Objective | To uncover the substantive truth of what occurred | To determine a winner based on legal arguments and evidence presented |
Therefore, when filing a corruption case, the objective is not merely to defeat the defendant but to present a complaint and evidence so compelling that it convinces the court to actively join the investigation.
For Public Officials: How to Prepare to Defend Corruption/Misconduct Allegations
For a public official, being the subject of an NACC finding or a criminal complaint is a serious crisis. A calm, methodical, and legally sound response is the best way to protect one’s rights.
First Steps After an NACC Finding or Complaint
The initial response is critical. The following steps should be taken:
- Remain Calm: Do not panic or take any action that could be misconstrued as destroying evidence.
- Secure Documents: Gather all official documents, memos, emails, and any other evidence from your perspective that relates to the allegation.
- Create a Factual Timeline: Write a detailed chronology of events from your point of view as soon as possible, while memories are fresh.
- Consult a Lawyer Immediately: Seeking advice from a lawyer specializing in corruption cases is essential for developing a proper defense strategy from the outset.
Rights of the Accused in Corruption Cases
The law provides fundamental rights to an accused person throughout the entire process, from the NACC investigation to the court proceedings. Key rights include :
- The Right to Be Informed of the Allegations: An accused person must receive a formal, written notification of the charges, including a summary of the facts and evidence supporting them.
- The Right to Rebut the Allegations: The accused has the right to submit a written statement and present evidence to counter the charges.
- The Right to Counsel: The accused has the right to have a lawyer or advisor present during questioning or when providing a statement.
- The Right of Access to Evidence: The accused may file a request to inspect the evidence contained in the NACC’s case file to prepare a defense.
Defense Strategy in an Inquisitorial System
Defending a case in an inquisitorial system requires a different approach than in an adversarial one. The strategy is not simply to create “reasonable doubt” but to proactively cooperate with the court’s truth-seeking mission. This is achieved by presenting a clear, logical, and evidence-backed alternative narrative that demonstrates the official’s actions were lawful, procedurally correct, and free of corrupt intent.
A lawyer’s role shifts from purely adversarial rebuttal to constructing a robust and credible account for the court’s consideration.
A Critical Warning: The Statute of Limitations for Fugitives
A crucial point for any accused public official to understand is found in Section 13 of the Procedure Act for Corruption Cases. It stipulates that if an accused person or defendant absconds during proceedings, the time they are a fugitive shall not be counted as part of the statute of limitations.
This means the statute of limitations is effectively “paused” or suspended while the person is on the run and will only resume if they return to face justice. Fleeing is not a viable long-term solution, as the charges will remain pending indefinitely.
Conclusion
The Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases is a vital institution for upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability in Thailand’s public sector. Understanding its unique procedures, particularly the inquisitorial system, is paramount for both citizens seeking justice and public officials defending their actions.
These cases are complex and carry high stakes. Whether you are an injured party seeking to exercise your rights or a public official requiring counsel to prepare a defense, consulting with a lawyer who has a deep understanding of this specialized court’s processes is a critical first step. You can learn more about our services in corruption and misconduct cases.
Leave a Message
Please fill in the form and we will contact you as soon as possible.