Bangkok Legal Service

Mr. Waan engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Khom, his domestic employee, resulting in her pregnancy. He subsequently threatened that, unless she terminated the pregnancy, she would be dismissed from employment. Despite such coercion, the abortion was not successfully carried out.

Under the Thai Penal Code, Ms. Khom’s act constitutes an attempt to procure an abortion, punishable under Sections 301 and 81. However, since the act remained at the stage of attempt, the specific penalties under Section 301 are not fully imposed in accordance with the general principles governing attempts.

Mr. Waan, by threatening Ms. Khom to undergo an abortion, is deemed an instigator (user of offense) under the relevant provisions. Ordinarily, an instigator is liable as a principal offender when the offense is committed as instructed.

Nevertheless, in this case, because the abortion was not successfully completed and remains merely an attempted offense, and considering the legal principle under Section 89 concerning incomplete causation, both parties may not be subject to full criminal liability for the substantive offense.

This case illustrates the distinction between attempted offenses and completed crimes, as well as the limits of liability for instigation when the principal act is not consummated.