Prime Minister and Interior Minister Anutin Charnvirakul has signed an order deporting Israeli national Yaacov Ohayon from Thailand after his conviction by Koh Samui Provincial Court for making threats. The order, signed on 5 September 2026, states that Ohayon, sent threatening messages to a victim suggesting there would be danger to their life and physical safety. The messages caused the victim fear and alarm, according to the order. Koh Samui court sentence Koh Samui Provincial Court found Ohayon guilty under Section 392 of Thailand's Criminal Code, concerning threats that cause another person fear or alarm. He was initially sentenced to one month in prison and fined 10,000 baht. The court reduced the punishment by half under Section 78 of the Criminal Code after he pleaded guilty, leaving a 15-day jail term and a 5,000-baht fine. The 15-day prison sentence was suspended for two years. The Interior Ministry order says his conduct was contrary to public order, good morals or the public's welfare. It therefore found that he met the grounds for deportation under Section 5 of the Deportation Act BE 2499 (1956). Appeal permitted within seven days Anutin issued the order using powers under Section 5 of the Deportation Act, together with Clause 4 of the Prime Minister's Office regulations on deportation BE 2569 (2026). Ohayon may appeal to the prime minister within seven days of being informed of the order. He can request that the deportation order be revoked, or ask for an order allowing him to leave the kingdom, under Section 8 of the Deportation Act. For foreign residents and visitors, the case is a reminder that a criminal conviction can have immigration consequences beyond a court fine or suspended sentence. A deportation order is an administrative action separate from the criminal penalty, and foreigners facing one should note the short seven-day appeal deadline stated in the order. Thailand's Deportation Act allows authorities to remove non-Thai nationals where their conduct is deemed a threat to public order, morality or public welfare. The order in this case specifically cites threatening communications and the subsequent Koh Samui court ruling as the basis for that conclusion. Picture courtesy of ThaiRath Join the discussion? 6 September 2026
View full article
Create an account or sign in to comment