paragraph 1 of the SEA. As the accused committed the several distinct and different offences, the Court inflicted the penalty prescribed for each offence as follows: (1) For a count of failure to submit the
Court ruled against the accused for violating Section 56, Section 274 paragraph 1, and Section 300 of the SEA. As the accused committed the several distinct and different offences, the Court inflicted the
through four transactions of the company’s advance payment for four business partners worth totaling 265 million baht and by falsifying revenue worth totaling 44 million baht. The revenue was not a result
transactions of the company’s advance payment for four business partners worth totaling 265 million baht and by falsifying revenue worth totaling 44 million baht. The revenue was not a result of the company’s
. The financial statement for the year 2016 did not comply with the Thai Accounting Standard no.18 (revised 2015), Revenue (TAS 18) and clause 14 a(i) of IAS - IE 18. Later, the rectified financial
the SET and the SEC Office. The Form 56-1 did not comply with the Thai Accounting Standard no.18 (revised 2015), Revenue (TAS 18) and clause 14 a(i) of IAS - IE 18. Later, the rectified Form 56-1 was
Office.The Form 56-2 did not comply with the Thai Accounting Standard no.18 (revised 2015), Revenue (TAS 18) and clause 14 a(i) of IAS – IE 18. Later, the rectified Form 56-2 was filed with the SET and the SEC
accounting, to falsify documents about financial aid from Coke in order to record as revenue, resulting in increase of profits in the financial statements for the year 2002 of DAIDO. In addition, he colluded
DAIDO chairman, to falsify documents about financial aid from Coke in order to record as revenue, resulting in increase of profits in the financial statements for the year 2002 of DAIDO. In addition, he