Thailand’s Supreme Court rules Bitcoin is property in Koh Samui robbery case

Thailand’s Supreme Court has ruled that Bitcoin qualifies as property under criminal law, upholding a 10-year prison sentence in a Koh Samui robbery case in which a victim was forced to buy and transfer cryptocurrency worth about US$50,000.

The full-bench decision, numbered 4929/2569, rejected the defendant’s argument that Bitcoin lacked intrinsic value and therefore could not be the property taken in a robbery. The court found that its market price, ability to be exchanged for cash and capacity for individual ownership were sufficient to establish its value as property.

The ruling concerns a September 2022 attack in which the victim was assaulted and threatened before transferring 2.480801 BTC to a wallet belonging to one of the attackers.

A forced transfer on Koh Samui

The Crypto Times, citing Thai outlet Siam Blockchain, reported that five men confronted the victim and his Russian wife at a café on September 15, 2022. They threatened the family and punched the victim before forcing him to use his phone to purchase and transfer the Bitcoin.

The cryptocurrency was worth approximately 1.878 million baht at the time. The group used a van and motorbikes, with the defendant helping to arrange transport and accommodation for the operation.

The trial court convicted the defendant of joint robbery involving the use of a vehicle. It imposed a 15-year prison sentence, reduced by one-third to 10 years because evidence he provided was useful to the proceedings.

The Supreme Court upheld that sentence and the order requiring him to return the 2.480801 BTC or pay its stated equivalent of 1.878 million baht. It also accepted the lower courts’ finding that he had participated in the coordinated robbery, supported by witness testimony, photographs and records of the cryptocurrency transfer.

Why Bitcoin counted as property

The legal challenge centred on whether an asset existing as electronic data could constitute property belonging to another person. The defendant argued that the Bitcoin transferred by the victim had no intrinsic value and therefore could not satisfy that element of the robbery offence.

In rejecting that argument, the court considered Sections 137 and 138 of Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code, covering tangible objects and intangible objects capable of having value and being acquired.

The judges also referred to the 2018 digital asset business decree, which defines cryptocurrency as electronic data created on a network for use as a medium of exchange.

The court’s reasoning distinguished physical form from economic value: Bitcoin has an identifiable market price, can be converted into cash when a buyer is available and can be held by members of the public. Forcing the victim to convert money into Bitcoin did not make that value disappear.

Property status is not legal-tender status

For residents and businesses holding cryptocurrency in Thailand, the relevant distinction is between recognition as property in a criminal case and recognition as legal tender.

The court considered a Bank of Thailand letter stating that cryptocurrency is not legal tender. It nevertheless concluded that this did not prevent Bitcoin from being property capable of being taken in a robbery.

The decision therefore addresses the criminal-law treatment of the forced transfer, rather than granting Bitcoin legal-tender status. In this case, its electronic form did not prevent the court from upholding either the robbery conviction or the order for its return or compensation.