The Legal Measures on Technological Crimes the case study of Romance Scam.

Abstract

This research consists of purposes were 1. To study and comparatively analyze problems with technology crimes in Thailand and to study and comparatively analyze problems with technology crimes in Thailand and abroad and 2. To find ways to improve legal measures related to technological crimes, the case study of Romance Scam. is qualitative research by conducting research studies from various related documents such as legal textbooks, academic articles, research reports in the type of thesis academic texts the article in the document data from electronic media, etc., and then use the information gathered from various related documents for content analysis. The study found that 1) A comparative study and analysis of problems with technology crime in Thailand and abroad, consisting of 1.1) Thailand still has limitations in the judicial process in preventing threats. Case of crimes using computer systems the law that is currently in force is not comprehensive and clear. While England has clearly defined principles and standards for law enforcement. with the competent officials responsible the nature of the behavior of the offense was not clearly distinguished. While according to the French Penal Code There has been a separation of offenses according to the nature of the act and behavior and 1.3) the determination of punishment in the case of liability related to crimes by using computer systems. Still in accordance with the criminal code fraud offenses. which is an acceptable offense Although the legal principles of the German Penal Code and the Fraud Act of France. has imposed penalties to prevent offenders from committing such acts and 2) Guidelines for improving legal measures on technological crimes in case of crime, including: 2.1) Law enforcement measures should be increased in setting restrictions to be more experienced. To create deterrent measures, 2.2) should establish a distinction of liability for incidents of general to serious nature, and 2.3) should address the nature of fraud offenses by providing “Scam” fraud. It is classified as an unacceptable fraudulent misconduct.