A Survey of Concepts on Unusual Wealthiness in Foreign and Thai Law, with Related Observations on Constitutional Court Decision No. 10/2567

Abstract

Thai society recognizes “unusual wealthiness” as a lifestyle inconsistent with one’s income, raising suspicions about the origin of assets. This concept is often closely linked to corruption by state officials. Thai law defines “unusual wealthiness” in the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2018) as “having unusually large assets, or an unusually large increase in assets, or an unusually large decrease in liabilities, or acquiring assets without a legal basis stemming from the performance of duties or the exercise of power in office, including cases where assets unusually increase as a result of comparing statements of assets and liabilities.” However, proving corruption is challenging, as clear victims are often absent and assets can be easily laundered. This has led many countries to adopt “asset recovery” approaches that focus on reclaiming illegally acquired assets without necessarily requiring proof of an underlying criminal offense.

Although the concept of “unusual wealthiness” is widely accepted, there is no universally fixed definition. Nevertheless, efforts have been made to offer a general one: “the enjoyment of an amount of wealth that is not justified through reference to lawful income.” Legislative approaches to unusual wealthiness vary globally and can broadly be categorized into two main groups: laws that impose criminal liability, with penalties such as imprisonment and fines; and laws that do not impose criminal liability, focusing instead on asset recovery, compensation for damages, or the enforcement of administrative measures, such as removal from office or prohibition from contracting with the state.

This article surveys the concept and evolution of “unusual wealthiness” in both Thai and foreign law, linking it to corruption among state officials and holders of political positions. It serves as foundational information for analyzing and understanding Constitutional Court Decision No. 10/2567. While the majority opinion affirmed the constitutionality of the unusual wealthiness provisions, dissenting opinions from some Constitutional Court judges raised concerns that merit further detailed consideration.