Articles on criminal law and criminal procedure

Fight a check case from real experience when guaranteeing a check – knowing that you can pay the check

For an example of fighting a criminal case today. The defendant and her husband came to my office saying that they were fans of my page and had been following my page for a long time. And then a lawsuit happened so he thought of me. and came to see me help fight the case.

Informing that he was being prosecuted for an offense under the Check Act for an amount of approximately 3 million baht with 3 cheques. He asked me to help fight the case. Give

Facts in the case

The defendant told him that The defendant and her husband have a career selling various types of jewelry and will receive products from the plaintiff for resale. Has been trading with the plaintiff for a long time.

Normally, the plaintiff will give credit to the defendant for receiving the goods first. Then take it and pay later. Have been trading like this for many years.

In the past, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had ever traded using checks. But it has always been a trade using cash or transferring money into accounts together.

Later, the defendant encountered financial problems. causing the money to circulate in time and took some of the plaintiff’s products out to sell and pawned it to bring the money into circulation and the redemption was not made in time, causing the plaintiff to owe a certain amount.

After that, the plaintiff tried to pressure. and demanded that the defendant issue a check to repay the debt The defendant tried to deny it many times. Dad said that from the time I was born until I was over 50 years old, I never had a checkbook. I’ve never used a check before.

But the plaintiff suggested a compulsory strategy. Have the defendant go and open a check at a bank. The plaintiff was the one who recommended the process and all the steps in issuing the check. and opening the checkbook

And after that, the plaintiff was the one who determined the amount of the debt. Evaluate according to price according to the satisfaction of the plaintiff. and have the defendant issue a check for the amount of debt determined by the plaintiff and delivered the check to the plaintiff. and set a date and time for the defendant to repay the debt.

Later when the check was due. The defendant was unable to pay the debt according to the check. The plaintiff therefore had the original check returned and a new check issued. and the new check could not be cashed again.

After that, the plaintiff went to report the case to the investigating officer. and later filed the case directly with the court.

Issue of contention

In this case, I have two main points of contention:

1.The check is a check that has no legal basis. The plaintiff does not have any documentary evidence regarding the information presented. The blinds that appear on the check are the information from which the plaintiff summed up the debt himself. without any supporting documentation

2.The said check is a guarantee check. The plaintiff had the defendant issue the check only as collateral. The plaintiff was well aware that the defendant’s financial situation was not good. Stuck with many problems and the defendant had never used a check or issued a check before Unable to pay by check


Act on offenses arising from the use of checks, B.E. 1991

Section 4. Whoever issues a check to pay a debt that actually exists and is legally enforceable in any manner or has done any such thing. as follows

(1) Intent not to allow the money according to the check to be used

(2) At the time the check was issued, there was no money in the account that could be used.

(3) Use money in an amount higher than the amount of money available in the account that can be used at the time the check is issued.

(4) Withdraw all or part of the money from the account which is to be used according to the check until the remaining amount is insufficient to use the money according to the check.

(5) Prohibit the bank from using the money according to the check with dishonest intent.

When a check has been submitted for the lawful use of money. If the bank refuses to use the money according to the check The person who issues the check commits an offense and is liable to a fine not exceeding sixty thousand baht. or imprisonment not exceeding one year Or both adjust and remember.


In an offense under the Check Act It must be established that the issuance of the check must be a check to pay off an actual debt and enforceable by law. If it appears that the debt is a non-existent debt There is no evidence. It is an uncertain debt. It is not an offense under the Check Act.

In addition, it must mean: It is a check to pay off debt, not a check to guarantee debt. If it appears that the intention of both parties You already know that the check is definitely impossible to cash. but would like to have a check issued as collateral for peace of mind or for use in criminal proceedings against the debtor later I agree that it is not an offense according to the Check Act.

Examples of Supreme Court judgments

Supreme Court judgment no. 2144/2013 Even though the loan contract and evidence of the loan There will be a clearly stated message. The defendant actually borrowed money from the plaintiff and will repay the debt with the disputed check. But in finding out the true intention, other facts must be considered as well. Especially the circumstances of all actions at the time the check was issued. It is not necessary to rely solely on the written statement of one party. When considering the circumstances of the relationship and actions in which the plaintiff was well aware of the defendant’s financial position from the beginning. It is believed that while the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff, he issued a disputed check to the plaintiff in advance. The plaintiff knew that the defendant had no way to pay the check. But the plaintiff accepted the check as security for a debt and could bring it to sue and extort the defendant in a criminal case. The defendant is not guilty according to Act on offenses arising from the use of checks, B.E. 2534, Section 4

Supreme Court Judgment No. 6223/2534 The first time the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff. The plaintiff went to open an account for the defendant so that the defendant could issue a check to use the money for the plaintiff. After that, the defendant brought cash to pay off the plaintiff’s second borrowing. The third time, the defendant issued a check to the plaintiff, one at a time, to guarantee that the defendant would not defraud the defendant of the money he had borrowed. It shows that the defendant has issued all three checks to the plaintiff to hold as collateral for the money the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff only. The 2 disputed checks are checks that the defendant gave to the plaintiff in borrowing money for the 4th and 5th times. To guarantee the amount of money that the defendant borrowed, as with previous checks, the plaintiff and defendant had no intention of using the disputed check as payment for debt. Therefore, the defendant is not guilty under the Act regarding offenses arising from the use of checks, B.E. 2497, Section 3.

Judgment The Supreme Court 1498/2514 The defendant issued a check as security for payment of the debt. Without intending to allow the money according to the check to be used, it was given to T. Later, T. took this check to ask for cash exchange from the victim. By the time the victim received the check, he knew full well that it was a check with no money, even though the bank refused to pay the check. When the victim applies for money The defendant is still not guilty of issuing a check with the intent to prevent the use of the check.


Preliminary inquiry level

This case is in the preliminary investigation stage. I view it as a case that is not very difficult. The facts are not complicated. Therefore, I assigned a lawyer to the office. Attorney Abhisit Somrup or Attorney Beer He is the person who goes to cross-examine in the preliminary inquiry.

It appears that in the preliminary inquiry stage Attorney Abhisit cross-examined the prosecution witnesses on several interesting points. and is very useful for the case picture.

For example, the plaintiff answered the cross-examination by saying, “From the time there was a problem, the defendant did not pay money to me until the day the defendant issued a check. I know the defendant’s financial situation is that he is unable to pay back the check to me. “

This clearly shows that at the time the plaintiff received the check from the defendant. He himself knew that the defendant was not in a position to pay the check.

However, because it is just a case in the preliminary investigation stage. Although the cross-examination was quite good. And there were various issues that the prosecution’s witnesses answered that were beneficial to the defense on many issues. But the Court of First Instance ordered the lawsuit to be accepted first.

Consideration class

When the case comes to the court for consideration. I therefore issued a cross-examination in this case. By setting up cross-examination points along the lines of defense that had been laid out.

It appeared that the prosecution’s witnesses gave many useful answers to cross-examination, such as:

  • Accept that in the past trade I’ve never used a check before.
  • Accept that the defendant had stated that I have never used a check before in my life.
  • I accept that I was the one who recommended it. and informed the defendant to be the one to open the checkbook.
  • I admit that I was the one who recommended the bank and branch where the defendant would go to open the check.
  • He was the person who advised the defendant to write the check. and specify the amount and date of order and payment
  • The defendant’s financial situation is so good that it is likely that the defendant will not be able to pay the check.
  • I accept that the check was issued. It is to serve as collateral in criminal proceedings.
  • Admitted that the check had been changed previously because the defendant did not have the money to pay as originally scheduled.

In the cross-examination I have used various techniques that have been described in detail. In this article, go follow and read.

” ถามค้าน 101 ” – รวมพื้นฐาน 12 เทคนิคการถามค้าน ที่ทนายความต้องรู้ก่อนขึ้นว่าความ



In this case, the Court of First Instance has ruled to dismiss the plaintiff’s case. Giving reasons like The plaintiff had the defendant issue a check in this case. The plaintiff was well aware that the defendant had never used the check. The transit trade had never issued a check before. And when the check was due, the check was changed. It can be seen that the plaintiff himself already knew that the defendant was unable to pay the check.

Details of the judgment

In this case, there will probably be an appeal to the Supreme Court. I’ll let you know what the results are, but I think the chance of the case changing or reversing the results is very unlikely.


The check case is a case that has many ways to fight the case. Which is a popular issue used in legal battles. Claimed it was a guarantee check or the debt does not exist or cannot be legally enforced.

So if we are the plaintiff Therefore, the facts must be analyzed well before filing a lawsuit. and investigate witnesses by preventing or closing the way to fight such cases well.

And if we are the defendant, we can use examples of work in this case. It can be useful in your work or can be applied according to your own case.

Express your opinion about this article


ทนายเอกสิทธิ์ ศรีสังข์

About ทนายเอกสิทธิ์ ศรีสังข์

ทนายความ/หัวหน้าสำนักงาน พิศิษฐ์ ศรีสังข์ ทนายความ ยินดีให้คำปรึกษากฎหมายและรับว่าความทั่วราชอาณาจักร โทร 098-2477807 , 087-3357764 ไลน์ id - @srisunglaw (มี @ข้างหน้า)

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.