Thailand’s Supreme Court has ruled that Bitcoin qualifies as property under criminal law, rejecting an argument that cryptocurrency cannot constitute stolen property because it has no intrinsic value.
The ruling, identified as Supreme Court judgment No. 4929/2569, was reported on October 28, 2026. It upheld a conviction in a robbery case in which a victim was forced to transfer 2.480801 BTC, valued at approximately $50,000 at the time.
The decision establishes an important judicial precedent for the treatment of Bitcoin in criminal proceedings. It confirms that cryptocurrency can qualify as property for the purposes of a robbery offence, even though it is not recognized as legal tender in Thailand.
According to reports from Thai crypto publications, the court upheld the defendant’s 10-year prison sentence and an order requiring the return of the Bitcoin or payment of compensation equivalent to approximately 1.878 million Thai baht.
Why Thailand’s Supreme Court ruled that Bitcoin is property
The case centred on whether Bitcoin could legally be considered property capable of being stolen under Thai law.
The defendant argued that the cryptocurrency transferred during the robbery had no intrinsic value and therefore could not constitute property taken from another person.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the legal definitions of property under Sections 137 and 138 of Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code. These provisions address tangible objects and extend the concept of property to intangible objects that have value and can be possessed.
The court also considered Thailand’s legal framework for digital assets, including the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018).
Bitcoin exists as electronic data on a digital network. However, the court considered its market value, its ability to be exchanged for cash and the fact that individuals can hold it.
These characteristics supported the conclusion that Bitcoin could qualify as property for the purposes of the robbery offence.
The court also distinguished between cryptocurrency’s status as property and its status as money. Although Bitcoin is not legal tender in Thailand, that does not prevent it from having economic value or receiving legal protection against theft.
The robbery case behind the ruling
The case involved a victim who was reportedly threatened and assaulted by a group of foreign nationals on Koh Samui, a Thai island.
According to reports on the judgment, the attackers forced the victim to convert $50,000 into Bitcoin and transfer 2.480801 BTC to a wallet under their control.
The defendant challenged the conviction, arguing that the transferred Bitcoin could not be considered property under the law.
The lower court convicted the defendant of participating in a robbery involving the use of vehicles. The sentence was initially set at 15 years but was reduced to 10 years after the court considered mitigating circumstances.
The appeals court upheld the conviction, and the Supreme Court subsequently rejected the defendant’s challenge.
The courts also upheld the order requiring the return of the cryptocurrency or compensation equivalent to approximately 1.878 million baht.
The case illustrates how cryptocurrency can be involved in offences traditionally associated with cash and physical possessions. It also demonstrates why courts must consider how existing property laws apply to digital assets.
Does this mean Bitcoin is legal tender in Thailand?
No. The ruling does not make Bitcoin legal tender or require businesses to accept it as payment.
Thailand’s Bank of Thailand has previously stated that digital assets are not legal tender. It has also cautioned about using cryptocurrencies to pay for goods and services because of price volatility and the risks involved for users.
The Supreme Court’s decision addresses a different legal question: whether Bitcoin can be treated as property taken from a victim during a robbery.
That distinction matters because legal recognition as property does not automatically grant an asset the same status as a country’s official currency.
Bitcoin can have market value, be owned and transferred between individuals, and still not qualify as legal tender.
The ruling should therefore be understood within the context of criminal law rather than as a sweeping change to Thailand’s monetary or cryptocurrency regulations.The decision provides clearer judicial guidance on how Bitcoin may be treated when it is obtained through robbery.
For victims of similar crimes, recognizing cryptocurrency as property can support legal claims that digital assets were unlawfully taken. It may also help courts assess compensation and apply existing criminal offences to cases involving cryptocurrency transfers.
However, the ruling does not resolve every legal question surrounding digital assets. Disputes involving ownership, inheritance, insolvency, contractual rights and regulatory compliance may raise different issues and require separate legal analysis.
The judgment also does not establish that every cryptocurrency or token will necessarily receive identical treatment in every legal dispute. The facts of a case and the relevant legal provisions remain important.
A significant development in crypto law
Thailand’s Supreme Court ruling highlights a broader challenge facing legal systems as digital assets become more widely held and used.
Laws developed around physical property and conventional money must increasingly be applied to assets that exist as digital records but can still have substantial economic value.
By recognizing Bitcoin as property in this robbery case, the court has clarified that the absence of legal-tender status does not mean cryptocurrency is without legal protection against theft.
The decision is an important development in Thailand’s treatment of digital assets. Its significance, however, lies in the legal protection of property in a criminal case ,not in making Bitcoin an official currency.