Thai Language version available here: https://fosrlaw.com/2026/คัดลอกข้อมูลบริษัท-ลักท/
In commercial practice, the unauthorized copying of data is often described as “theft.” Under Thai law, that characterization can be legally incorrect.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5161/2547 remains the leading authority on this issue. The Court held that data, lacking physical form, does not constitute “property” capable of being stolen under the Penal Code.
The consequence is not a lack of legal protection, but a shift in framework. In modern disputes, liability arises not from the act of “taking,” but from how data is accessed, controlled, and used.
The Case: Copying Without Removal
The case concerned an employee who:
- removed approximately 400 pages of documents from the office; and
- used his own storage media to copy business data from the company’s computer system.
The employer brought criminal charges for theft and interference with documents. Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the claims. The matter then proceeded to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Position
The Court upheld the acquittal and drew a clear distinction between information and property.
Under Section 137 of the Civil and Commercial Code, “property” requires a physical form. Data, by contrast, is characterized as facts or information, not a tangible object.
While data may be expressed through text, images, or diagrams, these are merely representations. They do not convert the underlying information into a physical object that can be possessed.
Because the defendant used his own storage media, no physical item belonging to the company was taken. What occurred was duplication, not removal.
On that basis, the Court concluded that the elements of theft were not satisfied.
For more information, see: https://fosrlaw.com/2024/computer-crime-act-in-thailand-supreme-court-application/)
The Document Issue: Accessibility and Absence of Harm
The Court also rejected the claim relating to physical documents.
Although documents are tangible, liability requires that their removal cause legally significant harm. The materials in question, corporate certificates, shareholder lists, and similar records, were publicly accessible via the Department of Business Development.
Their temporary removal and non-return did not give rise to the level of damage required to sustain a criminal claim.
The Structural Boundary in Thai Criminal Law
The outcome reflects a structural feature of Thai law rather than a gap in enforcement.
The offense of theft is based on two elements:
- a tangible object; and
- deprivation of possession.
Data copying satisfies neither. The information is not a physical object, and the original holder retains it.
This distinction reflects a deeper legal logic. Theft law protects exclusive possession, where one party’s gain necessarily deprives another of use. Information does not operate in the same way. When data is copied, control may be compromised, but possession is not lost.
For that reason, the legal framework shifts away from theft and toward misuse.
Litigation Reality: The Claim Does Not Fail, It Changes
In practice, disputes of this nature are not abandoned. They are reframed.
Modern claims typically rely on:
- the Trade Secrets Act;
- the Computer Crime Act; and
- civil claims arising from breach of duty or confidentiality.
The focus shifts from what was taken to how the information was accessed and used.
Courts will examine:
- whether the information was confidential;
- whether the company implemented protective measures;
- whether access was authorized; and
- whether harm can be demonstrated.
A further practical dimension lies in the evidentiary record. Accessing and copying data typically generates system logs, access histories, and transfer records. These electronic traces frequently become central to the dispute. The issue is no longer whether something was physically removed, but whether the sequence of access and use can be established through contemporaneous records.
The Position in 2026: Parallel Legal Frameworks
While the Supreme Court’s reasoning remains intact, the surrounding legal environment has evolved.
The Computer Crime Act provides a framework that directly addresses unauthorized access to and use of data, including cloud-based systems. The Trade Secrets Act governs the misuse of commercially valuable confidential information. The PDPA introduces additional obligations where personal data is involved. For more information, see https://fosrlaw.com/2022/personal-data-breach-notifications/
In practice, these regimes have become the primary tools for addressing data-related misconduct. The role of theft law in this context is limited.
Where the Boundary Still Matters
The distinction remains important in defining the limits of criminal liability.
If a defendant removes a physical storage medium belonging to the company, the analysis may satisfy the elements of theft. The object taken is tangible, and possession is transferred.
Where only the information is copied, however, the legal framework shifts away from theft and toward statutory regimes designed for intangible data.
For more information, see: https://fosrlaw.com/2025/thailand-digital-platform-regulation-2025/
Practical Distinction
| Action | Theft (Larceny) | Trade Secret / Computer Crime |
| Taking a company’s hard drive | Yes | Possible overlap |
| Copying data to external media | No | Yes |
| Taking publicly available documents | No | No |
| Taking proprietary physical documents | Yes | Yes |
When Data Copying Becomes Liability
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5161/2547 establishes a clear boundary: not all valuable business assets are “property” for the purposes of theft.
The practical implication is one of precision. In Thai corporate litigation, outcomes depend not on how conduct is described in commercial terms, but on whether it is aligned with the correct legal framework.
Where data is involved, the decisive question is not whether it was “taken,” but whether it was accessed, controlled, and used in a manner that gives rise to liability under the appropriate statute.
Disclaimer
The comments herein are provided for discussion and informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. Nothing contained in this publication should be relied upon as legal advice.
About the Authors
M.L. Numlapyos Sritawat
Founding Partner, Formichella & Sritawat Attorneys at Law
M.L. Numlapyos Sritawat leads the firm’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice. With more than thirty years of courtroom experience, he has appeared before nearly every level of Thailand’s judiciary, including the Supreme Court. A member of the Royal Institution and a descendant of a prominent Thai legal family, he is recognized for his assertive, innovative advocacy and for managing highly complex disputes spanning civil, commercial, bankruptcy, and criminal law. He often represents clients in landmark cases, and his extensive knowledge of Thailand’s courts and procedural law has established him as one of the nation’s leading litigators.
Patchamon Purikasem
Associate, Formichella & Sritawat Attorneys at Law
Patchamon Purikasem is part of the firm’s Litigation Department. Her focus includes corporate and commercial disputes, criminal defense and prosecution, and regulatory litigation. She frequently handles cases from initial strategies and investigations through trial, representing both domestic and international clients. Patchamon is recognized for her thorough preparation, strong courtroom advocacy, and her skill in managing complex evidence in high-stakes litigation.
Phalavat Kosalanon
Associate, Formichella & Sritawat Attorneys at Law
Phalavat Kosalanon specializes in pre-litigation strategies, dispute resolution, and trial preparation. He frequently assists with corporate and regulatory disputes, intellectual property litigation, cross-border defamation cases, and complex commercial conflicts. Phalavat supports the firm’s senior partners in managing document-intensive cases and developing litigation strategies before Thai courts.
Wannida Lamoonkit
Junior Associate, Formichella & Sritawat Attorneys at Law
Wannida Lamoonkit supports the firm’s litigation team with legal research, case preparation, and analysis of corporate documents used in Thai court cases. Her work assists with commercial disputes, corporate governance issues, and regulatory litigation.