Prosecutor’s Continuing Authority After Case Transfer: Legal Validity of Prior Assignment and the Court’s Refusal to Permit Further Conduct of the Case
1) Misappropriation Arising from the Use of a Pawn Ticket Delivered by Mistake
Mr. Chok purchased a pair of trousers from a second-hand shop and later discovered a pawn ticket in one of the pockets. He then used that pawn ticket to redeem the watch from the pawnshop and kept it for his own use. In this case, Mr. Chok is criminally liable for misappropriation. The pawn ticket had come into his possession because it was transferred to him by mistake on the part of the seller. By using the ticket to redeem the watch and treating the redeemed property as his own, he dishonestly appropriated property that had fallen into his possession through another person’s mistake. Accordingly, his conduct constitutes misappropriation under Section 352, paragraph two, of the Thai Penal Code.
2) Criminal Liability for Electrifying a Wire Fence Resulting in DeathMr. Sin placed wire around a storage shed located in his field and connected the wire to the household electric current in order to prevent thieves from entering. During the night, Mr. Somlon attempted to steal property from the shed and was electrocuted to death upon touching the wire. Later, at dawn, a neighboring child, Miss Sai, entered the fenced area and was also electrocuted to death by the same wire. In these circumstances, Mr. Sin is criminally liable for assault causing death under Section 290 of the Thai Penal Code. His conduct does not qualify as lawful self-defense, because the method used was indiscriminate, excessively dangerous, and capable of causing death to any person who came into contact with the wire, whether a thief or an innocent person. The act therefore exceeds the lawful bounds of protection of property and gives rise to criminal liability.