This research focuses on studying of concept towards the cases that the participator who commits an offense but does not have liability as the principal, instigator or aider and abettor that mentioned in the foreign law, so the researcher tries to find whether the Thai law has indicated this concept. The result of research found that the concept in the legal term and the judgment of foreign countries and Thai court are resemble in whom the victim of the crime that cannot be convicted as inciter or abettor even though that person does in fact aid, abet, counsel or procure the offense. Moreover, any cases that the person who is the important factor of the offense might not be guilty as a principal, instigator of aider and abettor also in foreign law and a Thai legal term because that person is not the object of the punishment. However, there are difference concepts between the judgment of British Court and American Court because the British Court provides that the person mentioned before can be convicted as an inciter or abettor if he knew the facts. In Thailand, there are two ways of judgment ; 1) In case that has already provided in the law specifically for the performance of the mentioned person, that person cannot be convicted as a principal, instigator, aider or abettor in aiding and assisting in its commission with the offender such as offences in bribing officer (article 144), and offences of abortion (article 302); 2) In case that is not provided in the law, the Supreme Court has followed the principle of the British Court based on knowing the facts of the offender which appears in only one case “Offences of cheating against creditors” (article 350)
