Bounced cheques in Thailand: claim or complaint
A cheque from a Thai customer that comes back unpaid opens two routes. The creditor can sue for the money, and the drawer may have committed an offence under the Cheque Act. The two run on different clocks, and the shorter one, three months for a criminal complaint, is the one most often lost while the debtor promises a replacement.
Published 25 September 2026
Two routes, two clocks
A dishonoured cheque gives the holder a civil claim against the drawer under the Civil and Commercial Code and, where the conditions of section 4 of the Act on Offences Arising from the Use of Cheques B.E. 2534 (1991) are met, a criminal complaint as well. The two are separate and either can be pursued without the other. The civil claim on the cheque has one year; the right to lodge a criminal complaint has three months.
The civil claim on the cheque
Under section 1002, a holder suing the drawer must do so within one year. For a cheque, the Supreme Court counts that year from the date written on the cheque, not from the day it was handed over or the day the bank refused it (judgment 9539/2544). Presentment has its own time limit. Section 990 requires the cheque to be presented within one month where it is payable in the place it was issued, and within three months elsewhere; a holder who misses it loses recourse against the endorsers, and against the drawer to the extent that the delay caused the drawer loss.
When the cheque claim has expired
Paying by cheque does not by itself discharge the debt. Under section 321, a debt paid by issuing a bill is extinguished only when the bill is paid. A creditor whose claim on the cheque is out of time may therefore still sue on the sale, the loan or whatever else the cheque was meant to pay, within that obligation's own period, as the Supreme Court held in judgment 1275/2504; in judgment 2013/2537 it treated payment by cheque as not creating a new debt in place of the old one. The creditor then has to prove the underlying debt rather than rely on the cheque alone.
The criminal offence
Section 4 of the Act makes it an offence to issue a cheque in payment of a debt that actually exists and is enforceable by law where the drawer intends it not to be paid, has no funds in the account when issuing it, draws for more than the account then holds, withdraws the funds so that the cheque cannot be paid, or stops payment dishonestly, and the bank refuses the cheque when it is lawfully presented. The penalty is a fine of up to 60,000 baht, imprisonment of up to one year, or both.
Cheques the Act does not cover
The debt must exist and be enforceable when the cheque is issued, so many cheques fall outside the Act. The Supreme Court has found no offence where a cheque was issued before the loan money was handed over (judgment 7615/2538), where cheques were given in advance for a phase of construction that had not begun and was later called off, so that no debt had arisen (judgment 1237/2565), and where the loan the cheque paid could not be enforced for want of written evidence (judgment 1414/2536). The question to ask is what the cheque was for on the day it was issued.
Three months to complain
The offence is compoundable (section 5 of the Act). Under section 96 of the Criminal Code, the injured person must lodge a complaint within three months of learning of the offence and the offender, or the case is barred, and the offence is committed when the bank refuses payment. In judgment 588/2546, between two companies, the creditor had filed a prosecution within time but in a court without jurisdiction, and refiled after the three months; the Supreme Court held that nothing in the Criminal Code suspends or interrupts the period, and the case was barred. Having the drawer re-date the cheque and presenting it again does not start a new offence or a new three months either (judgment 984/2535).
Payment ends the criminal case
Under section 7 of the Act, the case is terminated if the drawer pays the cheque amount to the holder or to the bank within thirty days of receiving the holder's written notice that the bank refused payment, or if the debt the cheque was issued for comes to an end before final judgment. Because the offence is compoundable, a settlement or the withdrawal of the complaint also ends the right to prosecute under section 39(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
A company's cheque
A company issues a cheque through the people who sign it. Under the earlier Act of 1954, the Supreme Court held the signing director liable as a principal together with the company (judgment 1965/2531). Under the present Act, in judgment 1730/2565, it held that a juristic person acts through its representatives, so that where the signatories did not know the account lacked funds, the juristic person had no intent either. A complaint about a company's cheque therefore turns on what the signatories knew when they signed.
Claiming the money in the criminal court
Section 8 of the Act allows the civil claim for the cheque amount to be filed with the court trying the criminal case where the cheques, singly or together, do not exceed the amount a single judge may decide in a civil case, which section 25(4) of the Charter of the Courts of Justice sets at 300,000 baht. The civil part is then tried under the Civil Procedure Code.
The judgments this rests on
Supreme Court judgment 9539/2544
The one-year period for a holder suing the drawer of a cheque runs from the date written on the cheque, not from delivery or dishonour.
Supreme Court judgment 1275/2504
Although the claim on the cheque had expired, the loan it was meant to pay was not extinguished (section 321), and the creditor could sue on the loan within its own period.
Supreme Court judgment 2013/2537
Payment by a cheque that was dishonoured is not a novation; the creditor may sue on the original obligation within its own period.
Supreme Court judgment 7615/2538
A cheque issued before the loan money was handed over was not issued for an existing debt; no offence under section 4.
Supreme Court judgment 1237/2565
Cheques given in advance for a phase of construction that had not begun, and whose contract was later terminated, were not issued for an existing, enforceable debt; no offence.
Supreme Court judgment 1414/2536
A cheque issued to repay a loan unenforceable for want of written evidence (section 653) is not an offence under the Act.
Supreme Court judgment 588/2546
The offence is committed on the day the bank refuses payment; the three months under sections 95 and 96 of the Criminal Code are not interrupted by a filing in a court without jurisdiction.
Supreme Court judgment 984/2535
Re-dating a dishonoured cheque and presenting it again is not a new offence; the three months run from the first refusal.
Supreme Court judgment 1965/2531
Under the earlier Act of 1954, a director who signed the company's cheque was liable as a principal together with the company.
Supreme Court judgment 1730/2565
A juristic person acts through its representatives; where the signatories did not know the account lacked funds, the juristic person had no intent and committed no offence under section 4.
Questions this raises
The cheque has bounced and the customer asks us to present it again next month. Do we lose anything by waiting?
Possibly the criminal route. The three months run from the first refusal, and a re-dated cheque presented again does not start a new offence (judgment 984/2535). The civil year runs from the date on the cheque (judgment 9539/2544).
Can we sue on the invoice instead of the cheque?
Yes. A debt paid by cheque is discharged only when the cheque is paid (section 321), so the claim on the underlying debt survives within its own period, provided the debt itself can be proved (judgments 1275/2504 and 2013/2537).
The cheque was given as security before the work was done. Is there an offence?
Usually not. The Act covers only a cheque issued to pay a debt that existed and was enforceable when the cheque was issued; the Supreme Court has found no offence where the debt arose only later (judgments 7615/2538 and 1237/2565).
The legislation
- Act on Offences Arising from the Use of Cheques B.E. 2534 (1991), sections 4, 5, 7 and 8
- Civil and Commercial Code, sections 321, 990 and 1002
- Criminal Code, section 96
- Criminal Procedure Code, section 39
- Charter of the Courts of Justice, section 25
Not sure whether the documents you hold are enough?
Ask first. An initial enquiry commits you to nothing and stays confidential.
