Image result for condo bangkok

New residential lease provisions went into effect in Thailand on January 30 that overwhelmingly favor landlords and reduces the rights of lessees.

The new stipulations were laid out in the New Notification of the Contract Committee Re: The Stipulation of Residential Property Leasing as a Contract-Controlled Business.

Before the recent changes, landlords could only void a lease agreement with a lessee if he or she provided a 30-day notice of any contract breach.

During that time, the lessee could use the 30 days notice of termination to remedy the breach of contract.

Now, though, a landlord can terminate a residential rental contract if a lessee breaches the contract as long as he or she gives the lessee a 30-day written notice.

The landlord can also dissolve the lease agreement in Thailand if a lessee disturbs the peaceful living of other tenants by giving the lessee a 7-day notice.

For lessees that do not comply with laws relating to the public good or good morals, landlords can terminate the contract immediately.

Tenants who want to exit a rental contract with their contract can do so by giving their landlord a written 30-day notice, but a new provision states that over half of the lease term must be expired before doing so.

Under previous property law provisions passed last year, condo law in Thailand was changed that only allowed landlords to require one-month advance rent and one-month deposit.

The new provisions strike that change down, and landlords can once again require one-month advance rent and up to three months’ worth of rent for deposit.

Landlords can now also confiscate deposits so long as the damages were the fault of the lessee and can enter the rental property of the lessee without notice if it is to avoid harm to the lessee or others.

Read the full story here.


Will Governments Outlaw Child Sex Robots?

by Admin on February 13, 2020

Sex robots are no longer a thing of the future.

There are now at least four major companies selling sex robots, ranging from $5,000 to $15,000.

One of the aforementioned companies specializes in child sex robots.

Governments around the world are now scrambling to decide how they should deal with the child sex robot trade. Should they regulate it or leave people to their own devices?

As of now, almost not governments have specific laws on the books prohibiting the buying or selling of child sex robots, but the child sex robot debate is beginning to rise in prominence.

Some governments, like the UK, are increasingly alarmed and have begun using existing laws to crack down on importing child sex robots.

Chaninat and Leeds is a law firm in Thailand specializing in family law matters, criminal cases, and civil litigation.

The UK’s Crown Prosecution Services (CPS) specifically turned to an 1876 law that banned the import of “obscene” items.

More than a handful of individuals were prosecuted in the UK for seeking to import child sex robots under this legal pretense.

But the question remains: while child sex robots are morally abhorrent, should they be banned considering no one is getting hurt?

Here’s how John Danaher, a law lecturer at the National University of Ireland summarizes the opposing arguments:

Child sex dolls are inanimate, human-like artifacts used for the purposes of sexual stimulation and gratification. But, given current technological trends, it is quite likely that people will create animate and robotized forms of these dolls in the near future. They are already doing this with adult forms of sex dolls. This raises the obvious question: what should the legal system do about these devices? Should we follow the lead of the CPS and look to ban their development, sale and use? Or should we permit them to be created on the grounds that, unlike other forms of child pornography, the creation of a child sex robot or doll does not involve any direct harm to real children?

But the question goes even deeper than that.

Those in favor of leaving child sex robots unregulated argue that–in addition to being an issue of personal freedom–they could actually lead to less sexual violence against minors due to allowing those with that specific urge to harmlessly flush it from their system.

Prohibition-types argue, however, that the opposite is the case.

By allowing individuals to purchase and use child sex robots, they will be more likely to want to perform acts on sexual children in real life.

Ultimately, more research is needed to conclude which side is right.

Read the full story here.


UK Court: Filming Partner Without Consent During Sex is a Crime

February 3, 2020

A UK court of appeals has ruled that filming a sexual partner during intercourse without consent falls under voyeurism, a criminal offense. The ruling by a three-judge panel strikes down an appeal by a man who had filmed himself having sex with prostitutes without their knowledge. His defense argued that he had not committed voyeurism […]

Read the full article →

State Department Adds Six Countries to Travel Ban List

February 3, 2020

The Trump administration has added six additional countries to the travel ban list, bringing the total to 13. The new countries added to the list include Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan, Myanmar, Tanzania, and Kyrgyzstan–all of which have significant Muslim populations. Immigrant visas for those seeking permanent residency in the US will be outright banned for individuals […]

Read the full article →