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​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More