You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

June 9, 2017

The Amended Computer Crimes Act: Important Changes for Business Operators

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

The Act Governing Commission of Offences Relating to Computers (generally known as the Computer Crimes Act) was enacted in 2007. Over the last decade, several high-profile cases have appeared in the media, especially when celebrities or models lodged criminal charges under the Act. Its application in criminal defamation cases has also been the subject of a lot of comment.

But the Computer Crimes Act is not only relevant to celebrities; it’s important to all businesses that use computers in their operations. This article discusses how certain recent amendments to the Computer Crimes Act that are now in force have important implications for business owners in Thailand.

Spam Emails

Under the amended Act, a business may face criminal punishment if it sends computer data or emails that cause trouble or annoyance to recipients without an option to allow the recipient to easily cancel, unsubscribe, or inform the sender to cease sending further emails or computer data. The penalty for such actions is a maximum fine of THB 200,000. From now on, if business operators send any emails or e-bulletins to their customers and fail to provide an easy way for recipients to cancel or unsubscribe, the business operators will be criminally liable if the emails or e-bulletins are deemed to have caused trouble or annoyance.

Greater Penalties for Hackers

Businesses that use computer systems that involve national security, public safety, national economic security, or infrastructure that concerns the public interest are now more protected from hackers due to an increase in criminal penalties for offenders who use a computer in crimes against these systems. Offenders will face more severe criminal penalties compared to offenses against a computer system used by normal business owners, with fines from THB 20,000 to THB 140,000, and imprisonment from one year to seven years. More severe penalties may also be imposed if the crime results in damage or other impacts to protected systems, or if the crime unintentionally results in the death of a person.

False Information

An offender who dishonestly or deceitfully brings false, distorted, or forged information or data into a computer system in such a way that is likely to cause damage to the public will face imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding THB 60,000, or both. For the law to apply to such an offense, it is not a defamation offense under the Penal Code and must be targeted at an individual. This offense is compoundable, which means both parties can settle.

Service Providers

Any service provider that cooperates with, consents to, or connives to certain offenses under the amended Act, such as dishonestly or deceitfully bringing false, distorted, or forged information or data into a computer system under the service provider’s control, will face criminal penalties. The Minister of Digital Economy and Society has the authority to issue an announcement to determine the processes for issuing a warning, termination of the circulation of the computer data, and removal of the computer data from the computer system. A service provider will be waived from criminal penalties if it can prove that it has complied with such an announcement.

Altered Images

It is a crime to alter, edit, or modify another person’s image or to place it onto a computer system which the public can access, in a manner likely to cause the person to suffer damage to his or her reputation, to be insulted, to be detested, or to suffer humiliation. The owner of the altered image and other offenders will face more severe criminal penalties under the amended Act, with imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding THB 200,000. The amended law also includes an offense related to pictures of deceased persons.

Expanded Court Authority

Under the amended Act, the court has new authority pertaining to computers and can order the destruction of data. The court can also publish a judgment wholly or partially through electronic media, broadcast radio, broadcast television, newspaper, or other media which it deems appropriate. The court also has the authority to order other actions deemed necessary to remedy injury arising from an offense.

Settlement

Some offenses, such as the unauthorized access of a computer system, disclosure of preventive measures for accessing a computer system, or bringing false information into computer system, can be settled by a committee appointed by the Minister.

Computer Data Screening

The Minister has the authority to appoint a computer data screening panel, which may assign an officer to request that the court orders the cessation of circulation of computer data, or the deletion of computer data, when there is circulation of computer data that constitutes a crime under the Act, affects the security of Thailand, or conflicts with peace and order, or good morals.

The amended Act also addresses other important issues, and business owners should therefore be aware of potential criminal implications when their business operations involve computer data or a computer system.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More