Foreigners Fined for Graffiti on Chiang Mai School

Foolish yes. However given some of the very unsavoury behaviour of some tourists it's pretty harmless. I think the Thai authorities have got it about right. Mainly because they seem to have been polite and apologetic. Admitted it, didn't get lairy and are paying their fines and damages. You could say they see themselves as 'Artists'........just not very good ones.

8 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

So, if I leave my phone on a restaurant table, whilst I go to the toilet, and you steal it, is that not a crime against me? (people)

You are caught by police, charged, and convicted. There is no prison time for this petty theft, but regardless of the penalty, do you believe you should still be allowed to remain living in Thailand?

In my opinion, in the above example, you should be deported and black listed. Why should Thailand allow thieving foreigners to remain living in Thailand?

That's petty theft, unless it's over a certain amount, then it can be a felony. Thailand doesn't distinguish between a felony and misdemeanor but looks at crimes individually.

In the west there can be a dollar amount attached. In both places you could get a fine or jail.

What i meant about against a person is assault or other violent crimes, and not theft.

Many people commit minor thefts and get fines and possibly jail here, which could teach a lesson, or not, as some don't care anyway, but seeing many locals commit theft daily, and rarely get jail, that punishment, a fine, fits the offense. Repeat offenses are another matter entirely.

Stealing something large of course the penalty goes higher, and deportations can happen when it's organized crime or robberies of a higher price tag. Many offenses are committed while a person is drunk, so they'll take that into consideration also, along with if you apologize and admit guilt, which shows remorse. If a local doesn't get prison time for a certain offense, neither should a foreigner.

In any event, it's not our country but theirs, and their rules.

2 hours ago, vangrop said:

What I don't understand, and this includes many other cases like fights, non-payment at restaurants, sexual assault of women, etc., is that the Thai authorities allow it and don't immediately deport these individuals. The Thai authorities, who supposedly want to attract high-class tourists, on the other hand, let these thugs get away with it without any real consequences. Could someone explain this to me?

Justice is blind? Of course sexual or other assaults a foreigner should be deported.

20 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Utterly pathetic. That grown adults can do this kind of thing is almost beyond belief. Fine and deport, with a ban on any future visits to Thailand.

Indeed, pathetic and childish vandalism. Boot then out.....

18 hours ago, Old Croc said:

The fine was the same as I copped the time the 90-day reporting app was down, and I couldn't make the one-way 130km drive to an IO to report in person.

I should have just vandalised the local school and the Police would have come to me.

@Liverpool Lou You disagree with my flippant remark about an alternate way to report?

As one known for your levity when posting, perhaps you can dispense advice on how i should have phrased my attempt at humour.

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Thailand does not "accept criminality from foreigners".

These guys were fined, but not deported, after committing a criminal offense.

This shows Thailand allows foreign criminals to remain in Thailand.

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I don't have a "threshold for deportation", I'm a visitor here, same as you, for those who stay out of trouble, it's nothing to do with us.

In that case, nor does every single news story published on this forum. Why do you bother posing then? 🙂

15 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Why should Thailand accept any criminality from foreigners here?

Would your opinion differ it it was a Buddhist Temple, rather than a school?

Wat Dok Euang Incident (Early 2026): CCTV footage captured an Australian couple spray-painting the perimeter wall of this 400-year-old temple. Tourist Police and Immigration officers tracked them to Pai and successfully apprehended them upon their return to Chiang Mai Bangkok Post. They were charged under the Public Cleanliness Act Bangkok Post.

Don't know what happened to them.

Foreigners caught defacing sacred or public property face prosecution under the Thailand Act on the Maintenance of the Cleanliness and Orderliness of the Country. Violators generally face:Substantial fines (often up to 3,000-10,000 baht).Full compensation for cleanup and repainting costs.Potential visa revocation and deportation by immigration police.

4 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

That's petty theft, unless it's over a certain amount, then it can be a felony. Thailand doesn't distinguish between a felony and misdemeanor but looks at crimes individually.

In the west there can be a dollar amount attached. In both places you could get a fine or jail.

What i meant about against a person is assault or other violent crimes, and not theft.

Many people commit minor thefts and get fines and possibly jail here, which could teach a lesson, or not, as some don't care anyway, but seeing many locals commit theft daily, and rarely get jail, that punishment, a fine, fits the offense. Repeat offenses are another matter entirely.

Stealing something large of course the penalty goes higher, and deportations can happen when it's organized crime or robberies of a higher price tag. Many offenses are committed while a person is drunk, so they'll take that into consideration also, along with if you apologize and admit guilt, which shows remorse. If a local doesn't get prison time for a certain offense, neither should a foreigner.

In any event, it's not our country but theirs, and their rules.

I'm not really interested in what punishment is handed out to locals. It's irrelevant, as were are discussing deportation of foreigners after committing a criminal offense.

I'm well aware of how the dollar value can be related to the sentencing, also mitigating circumstances.

Would it / should it matter if the phone stolen was the latest iPhone worth around $2000AUD, or a cheap basic Chinese phone worth around $150AUD? The guilty mind is still present.

The phone example can be compared to assault. A foreigner punches someone in the face just one time. It could be a Thai, or foreigner. The nationality of the victim is irrelevant. That punch could be inaccurate and the only injury is some bruising, or, the punch could be accurate and breaks the victim's jaw. I see it as an assault, which is a criminal offense, showing the foreigner has a tendency for violence, so after prosecution, conviction, and fining / sentencing, he should be deported.

In the above cases, why should the foreigner be allowed to stay in Thailand because it was a cheap phone, or he threw an inaccurate punch? Theft is theft, and an assault is an assault.

I know many would differential between one punch to the face and kicking the sh*t out of the guy's head when he is on the ground, but the injuries would be taken into account when sentencing.

I am separating sentencing from deportation, and in my opinion, once a foreigner commits a criminal office, he should lose the "privilege" of being able to remain living in Thailand.

3 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm not really interested in what punishment is handed out to locals. It's irrelevant, as were are discussing deportation of foreigners after committing a criminal offense.

I'm well aware of how the dollar value can be related to the sentencing, also mitigating circumstances.

Would it / should it matter if the phone stolen was the latest iPhone worth around $2000AUD, or a cheap basic Chinese phone worth around $150AUD? The guilty mind is still present.

The phone example can be compared to assault. A foreigner punches someone in the face just one time. It could be a Thai, or foreigner. The nationality of the victim is irrelevant. That punch could be inaccurate and the only injury is some bruising, or, the punch could be accurate and breaks the victim's jaw. I see it as an assault, which is a criminal offense, showing the foreigner has a tendency for violence, so after prosecution, conviction, and fining / sentencing, he should be deported.

In the above cases, why should the foreigner be allowed to stay in Thailand because it was a cheap phone, or he threw an inaccurate punch? Theft is theft, and an assault is an assault.

I know many would differential between one punch to the face and kicking the sh*t out of the guy's head when he is on the ground, but the injuries would be taken into account when sentencing.

I am separating sentencing from deportation, and in my opinion, once a foreigner commits a criminal office, he should lose the "privilege" of being able to remain living in Thailand.

No, assault on a human has nothing to do with theft. Theft involves stealing for a need or profit, which is also a need, greed being it. Assaulting another human is against their person physically. The two offenses aren't related and should have different penalties. Of course the value of a theft comes into play in the west, not as much here.

It's up to the judges to decide, and that's where things can go right or wrong, as some are incompetent, morons or good and follow the listed laws.

A guilty mind means nothing, as all humans have that at times. The actions should match the punishment.

Deporting someone who's likely spending money here isn't going to happen that easily, especially if they are expats and not tourists that are leaving anyway. Lot of talk about deporting foreigners, as if they think Thailand belongs to them. It's the court's decision. not ours. Fine and or jail, depending on value teaches a lesson, as the rich don't need to steal and the poor it will hurt fining them.

Assaulting a human should be deport, as people who do that, especially to innocents, shouldn't be allowed to enter a different country than their own anyway.

22 minutes ago, roo860 said:

Wat Dok Euang Incident (Early 2026): CCTV footage captured an Australian couple spray-painting the perimeter wall of this 400-year-old temple. Tourist Police and Immigration officers tracked them to Pai and successfully apprehended them upon their return to Chiang Mai Bangkok Post. They were charged under the Public Cleanliness Act Bangkok Post.

Don't know what happened to them.

I hope they were prosecuted, convicted, fined / sentenced, and deported.

One a side note to this topic, Thailand doesn't know if many of the foreigners living here have a criminal history in their home country. I don't mean those on the run, I mean those with a criminal past.

In my opinion, as soon as they commit one criminal offense here, they should be deported, because for all Thailand knows, they have a long history of committing crimes in their home country, something that is not brought up in sentencing in Thailand.

7 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

No, assault on a human has nothing to do with theft. Theft involves stealing for a need or profit, which is also a need, greed being it. Assaulting another human is against their person physically. The two offenses aren't related and should have different penalties. Of course the value of a theft comes into play in the west, not as much here.

I said they can be compared, not they were the same.

7 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

It's up to the judges to decide

Yes, the judge decides on guilt and punishment, but my point is, immigration decides on visa status, and after committing a criminal offense, in my opinion, you're out.

8 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

A guilty mind means nothing, as all humans have that at times. The actions should match the punishment.

Once again, you are mixing up criminal law with immigration. You are dealt with by the judicial system, then you are dealt with by immigration.

Thailand should not allow foreigners who have committed a criminal offense to remain living in Thailand. Why should they?

11 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Deporting someone who's likely spending money here isn't going to happen that easily, especially if they are expats and not tourists that are leaving anyway. Lot of talk about deporting foreigners, as if they think Thailand belongs to them. It's the court's decision. not ours. Fine and or jail, depending on value teaches a lesson, as the rich don't need to steal and the poor it will hurt fining them.

Once again, you are saying Thailand's judicial system gets to decide if one is allowed to remain living in Thailand.

I separate the judicial system from immigration.

An offender is dealt with by the judicial system, then deported by immigration.

I gave an example of a Brit in Australia. I see on the BBC they would like to do the same with the grooming ringleader in the UK.

15 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Assaulting a human should be deport, as people who do that, especially to innocents, shouldn't be allowed to enter a different country than their own anyway.

You have contradicted yourself.

13 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I said they can be compared, not they were the same.

Yes, the judge decides on guilt and punishment, but my point is, immigration decides on visa status, and after committing a criminal offense, in my opinion, you're out.

Once again, you are mixing up criminal law with immigration. You are dealt with by the judicial system, then you are dealt with by immigration.

Thailand should not allow foreigners who have committed a criminal offense to remain living in Thailand. Why should they?

Once again, you are saying Thailand's judicial system gets to decide if one is allowed to remain living in Thailand.

I separate the judicial system from immigration.

An offender is dealt with by the judicial system, then deported by immigration.

I gave an example of a Brit in Australia. I see on the BBC they would like to do the same with the grooming ringleader in the UK.

You have contradicted yourself.

No, you're using your opinions and that means nothing. I'm not mixing up anything. First the courts, then immigration. I didn't say otherwise.It's up to them, not us. You have your opinion, and others have theirs, and none matters. Assault is not like theft. I haven't changed my mind. You're thinking is that both are criminal acts and should be dealt with the same. That's ludicrous. Immigration usually is involved with visa problems, like overstays or working without permits, and can deport for those. The court system is involved first with other criminal acts, locally.

Thai Courts (Judicial Deportation)

• Role: Typically involved when an offense goes beyond a simple visa violation, such as when a foreigner commits a serious crime in Thailand.

• Process: The individual must go through the formal Thai criminal justice system. If convicted, the court can sentence them to prison and issue a deportation order following their sentence completion.

• Thai Immigration Bureau (Administrative Deportation)

  • Role: Handles the vast majority of deportations for immigration violations, such as visa overstays or working without a permit. [1, 2]

  • Process: Immigration officers conduct an investigation and can cancel your visa, order your deportation, and place you on a re-entry blacklist

Both immigration agencies and immigration courts are involved in the deportation process, but they play different roles. The courts determine if someone should be deported, while the immigration agency actually detains and removes the person.

You're separating the courts from immigration doesn't mean anything,as they're both involved in the process in a criminal offense such as assault or theft.

Edited 8 hours ago8 hr by fredwiggy

7 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

You're thinking is that both are criminal acts and should be dealt with the same.

Yes, and you are trying to differentiate between the seriousness of different offenses. Why not a blanket policy? If a foreigner commits any criminal offense, they are deported. Other countries have this. What happened to the "Good Guy In - Bad Guys Out" campaign?

Take the discretion (corruption) away from the court / police and if you are charged and found guilty, you are out. A strict liability policy.

What about those foreigners living here with extensive criminal records in their home country? They shouldn't be allowed in. In my opinion, a police clearance from one's home country should have to be produced for a long visa.