Thailand Sexual-Harassment Law Tested in Dome Case

A week-old social-media post has snowballed into one of the first major tests of Thailand’s brand-new sexual-harassment law, placing singer-actor Pakorn “Dome” Lam under intense public and legal scrutiny while energising a broader conversation about online safety for Thai women.

What you need to know quickly

• New legal landscape: A tougher Criminal Code amendment on sexual harassment took effect on 30 Dec 2025.

• The incident: Dome’s late-night remark beneath a photo of Yotsuda “Jinny” Leelapanyalert sparked outrage two days before the law kicked in.

• Fast-track order: Phahonyothin police were told to move “as swiftly as possible,” an uncommon instruction in defamation-style disputes.

• Potential charges: Officers are weighing both the amended Criminal Code and the Computer Crime Act.

• No formal summons yet: Investigators insist they must finish interviewing Jinny before deciding whether to call Dome in.

New statute, new stakes

The revised Penal Code—approved after years of lobbying by women’s-rights groups—elevates “sexual harassment” from a petty-offence add-on to a freestanding crime that carries up to 3 years in jail when committed online. Legal analysts say prosecutors now need to prove only that the content caused distress, not that physical force or threat occurred. “That shift is monumental,” notes Chulalongkorn University law lecturer Oranuch Teeranukul. “Suddenly an Instagram comment can trigger real prison time.”

Inside the investigation

Phahonyothin station chief Pol Col Marut Sudnongbua confirmed that his team has already preserved the original post and server logs. “We will not be relying on screenshots alone,” he said, referring to a common evidentiary weak spot in past cyber-cases. Officers expect to take Jinny’s official statement early next week, after which they will decide whether Dome should be summoned or charged outright. Because the entertainer is a public figure, police say they may skip a warrant and proceed directly with a notice of accusation once the victim’s testimony is recorded.

Dome’s public apology: helpful or harmful?

The 46-year-old star has issued a video apology, blaming late-night drinking and claiming he did not realise the woman in the photo was a politician’s daughter. He even delivered a fruit basket to Thai Sang Thai Party headquarters but left without meeting anyone—the office was closed for the holidays. Lawyers for Jinny insist the gesture does not affect the criminal dimension: “Apologies go to mitigation, not to liability,” said Suchaiwut Chaosuankluay of the party’s legal team. Some netizens, however, allege the clip could be viewed as an admission that the account indeed belonged to Dome, simplifying prosecutors’ work under the Computer Crime Act’s Section 14(4) about obscene content.

Why this case resonates beyond Bangkok

Thailand has grappled with several harassment-on-screen scandals—mostly stalled or settled out of court—because earlier statutes offered only light fines. The new law, coupled with widespread social-media use, creates an environment where:

Victims possess clearer legal standing to act quickly.

Police can cite explicit online-harassment clauses instead of patching cases together under general nuisance sections.

Perpetrators face stiffer penalties, including court-ordered digital takedowns and restraining orders lasting up to 2 years.

The Dome controversy therefore functions as an unofficial pilot project that women’s-rights groups will watch closely. “If authorities fumble this, the reform risks looking cosmetic,” warns Surang Jariyajit of the Foundation for Women.

Recent precedents signal changing winds

Thai courts have lately shown less patience with digital misconduct:

• December 2025: An unnamed male actor became the first defendant charged solely under the amended sexual-harassment clause for explicit TikTok comments.

• December 2025: Pop singer Ink Waruntorn filed a Computer Crime complaint over doctored nude images; police secured a take-down order within 48 hours.

• March 2026: Activist Ekachai Hongkangwan lost his final appeal and began a 1-year sentence for inserting pornographic content into Facebook posts—an earlier case under older provisions, but cited by prosecutors as proof that custodial sentences are possible.

What happens next?

Investigators expect to wrap interviews by mid-January. If charges follow, Dome could face:

• Up to 3 years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding 60,000 baht under the sexual-harassment amendment; and/or• Up to 5 years or 100,000 baht under Section 14(4) of the Computer Crime Act.

Should the case reach court, it would be the first high-profile trial under both laws concurrently—a procedural path that legal scholars say could set binding precedent for how Thailand polices harassment in cyberspace.

For now, one thing is clear: a single comment has turned into a litmus test for whether the Kingdom’s updated statutes can keep pace with the speed—and bite—of social media discourse.