Legal Problems Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence as a Tool for Criminal Activity

Abstract

This research consists purposes were 1. to investigate concepts, theories and principles related to the use of artificial intelligence as a tool for criminal activity 2. to explore legal measures related to the use of artificial intelligence as a tool for criminal activity of Thailand and foreign countries 3. to analyze legal problems of the use of artificial intelligence as a tool for criminal activity and 4. to propose guidelines for resolving legal issues concerning the use of artificial intelligence as a tool for committing crimes. This is a qualitative research study conducted through the examination of various related documents, including research reports, conferences, seminars, theses and articles from both Thailand and abroad. The data collected from these documents were analyzed using content analysis. The research findings revealed that 1) The use of artificial intelligence in contemporary society has caused profound structural changes to the economic system, society and public administration, particularly in the legal dimension, which has traditionally been designed based on a human-centered concept. The capability of artificial intelligence to learn, analyze and make decisions autonomously to a certain extent has resulted in criminal activities becoming more complex, concealed and capable of causing widespread impacts. Consequently, traditional law enforcement mechanisms are no longer able to effectively address such challenges 2) The study found that (1) regarding the definition of the use of artificial intelligence as a tool for committing crimes, the relevant legal provisions are contained in the Penal Code and the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, particularly Sections 5, 7 and 14 of the aforementioned Act and (2) regarding users, developers and owners of artificial intelligence systems as instrumentalities in the commission of crimes, it was found that the Penal Code clearly establishes criminal liability based on a human-centered principle. Section 2 stipulates that no person shall be criminally punished unless the act is prescribed by law as an offense and subject to punishment, while Section 59 provides that criminal liability must involve either intent or negligence 3) Regarding liability in cases where artificial intelligence is used as a tool for committing crimes, the study found that Section 2 of the Penal Code establishes the principle that no person shall be punished unless the act is defined by law as an offense and subject to punishment, while Section 59 requires criminal liability to be based on intent or negligence, which are mental states legally recognized only in human beings. As a result, artificial intelligence, which lacks consciousness and cannot possess intent or negligence within the meaning of the law, cannot be considered a direct offender and 4) The Draft Act on the Prevention and Suppression of the Use of Artificial Intelligence as a Tool for Committing Crimes B.E. …. consists of the following key provisions (1) definitions (2) general provisions (3) supervisory committee (4) duties of service providers (5) offenses relating to the use of artificial intelligence as a tool and liability (6) protection of rights and (7) liability of juristic persons and administrative penalties.