constituted public frauds contravening Section 343 and 83 of the Penal Code. Furthermore, the operation violated Emergency Decree Governing Fraudulent Borrowing B.E.2547 (2004). The statute of limitations ran
Section 343 and 83 of the Penal Code. Furthermore, the operation violated Emergency Decree Governing Fraudulent Borrowing B.E.2547 (2004). The public prosecutor issued a prosecution order against the
contravening Section 343 and 83 of the Penal Code. Furthermore, the operation violated Emergency Decree Governing Fraudulent Borrowing B.E.2547 (2004). The public prosecutor issued a prosecution order against
Section 343 and 83 of the Penal Code. Furthermore, the operation violated Emergency Decree Governing Fraudulent Borrowing B.E.2547 (2004). The Criminal Court dismissed the case. DV Act S.16 and Section
contravening Section 343 and 83 of the Penal Code. Furthermore, the operation violated Emergency Decree Governing Fraudulent Borrowing B.E.2547 (2004). The Criminal Court dismissed the case. DV Act S.16 and
adjudicated that the defendant was guilty under Section 17 paragraph one, Section 26, Section 57, and Section 66 of the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). The defendant’s act constituted
committing unlicensed digital asset exchange offense. On March 7, 2024, the Criminal Court ruled against the accused for violating Section 3, 26 and 66 of the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E