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
service providers and store the assets in its cold wallets, digital wallets connected to the internet when conducting transactions only, in the proportion specified in the notification of the SEC. DAB
. 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
pay there own costs and expenses.25/02/2019 The Civil Court delivered a judgement ordering the defendant to pay a sum of 333,333.33 Baht to the plaintiff to be collected as public revenue and
GIFT. This resulted in a significant decline in GIFT’s performance and revenue. Furthermore, Mr. Perajed personally benefited from the operations of GLOOMMING 18/07/2025 agreed to comply with civil
. As a result, JKN’s financial statements reflected inflated revenue and liabilities. Additionally, it was found that royalty payables were recorded inaccurately, not corresponding to the actual