“Yingcheep iLaw” affirms that Section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code contains no provision for "filing complaints based on the victim's residence" and warns that police accepting cases outside their jurisdiction risk violating the law.Tags: [Criminal Procedure Code, Police Jurisdiction, Legal Warning, iLaw]
On 29 Jul 2026 GMT+7, Mr. Yingcheep Atchanont, Director of the Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), posted on his personal Facebook explaining Section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning police investigators' jurisdiction to accept complaints and conduct criminal proceedings. He stated this was to clarify misunderstandings after some senior officials misquoted the law. According to Section 18, a criminal case begins and the investigator has authority to handle it only if one of these three conditions is met:Tags: [Criminal Procedure Code, Police Jurisdiction, Legal Clarification, iLaw, Facebook Post]
1. It is the jurisdiction where the offense occurred.Tags: [Criminal Procedure Code, Jurisdiction, Offense Location]
2. It is the jurisdiction where the suspect resides.Tags: [Criminal Procedure Code, Jurisdiction, Suspect Residence]
3. It is the jurisdiction where the suspect was arrested.Tags: [Criminal Procedure Code, Jurisdiction, Arrest Location]
Mr. Yingcheep emphasized that no law permits filing complaints based on the victim's residence or a location convenient for the victim. Citing the victim's registered address or hometown cannot legally justify choosing the place to file a complaint. The law’s intent is to protect the accused, yet this loophole has been exploited to harass others, contrary to the law’s purpose. Proceedings must occur where the offense happened or where it does not impose undue burden on the accused.Tags: [Legal Interpretation, Victim Residence, Harassment, Criminal Procedure Code, Legal Loophole]
He further noted that currently, this legal gap is being exploited for harassment, especially in defamation and Computer Crime Act cases, where complainants claim to have "seen" offensive content in remote areas such as Narathiwat, Chiang Rai, Phayao, or Mae Sot. This is then interpreted as the case arising at the location where the content was viewed, creating travel burdens to intimidate suspects into silence. He stressed the need for legal amendments to close this loophole.Tags: [Legal Loophole, Defamation Cases, Computer Crime Act, Harassment, Remote Jurisdictions]
Concern Over Police Accepting Cases Outside JurisdictionTags: [Police Jurisdiction, Legal Concern]
For the general public, filing complaints in the wrong jurisdiction is often the main reason police refuse to accept cases, which is common practice. However, if such a situation involves prominent figures like Mr. To and the police accept complaints outside their jurisdiction out of deference, the investigators may themselves be violating the law under Section 18.Tags: [Police Jurisdiction, Case Acceptance, Legal Violation, Prominent Figures]
Mr. Yingcheep concluded by noting that current law may still provoke debate regarding victim convenience, such as cases involving lost property while traveling. Yet, until the law explicitly allows filing based on victim convenience, officials and parties must strictly adhere to the legal provisions.Tags: [Legal Debate, Victim Convenience, Criminal Procedure Code, Official Duty]