(2) Mr. Patiphat Supasirisin and (3) Mr. Sakesan Baisak jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and
. Amorn and Mr. Pipat were deemed a dishonest breach of duties offense, an asset misappropriation and seeking unlawful benefits for themselves and their associates, causing damage to AJA. In addition, the
. Amorn and Mr. Pipat were deemed a dishonest breach of duties offense, an asset misappropriation and seeking unlawful benefits for themselves and their associates, causing damage to AJA. In addition, the
Mr. Amorn and Mr. Pipat were deemed a dishonest breach of duties offense, an asset misappropriation and seeking unlawful benefits for themselves and their associates, causing damage to AJA. In addition
acts of Mr. Amorn and Mr. Pipat were deemed a dishonest breach of duties offense, an asset misappropriation and seeking unlawful benefits for themselves and their associates, causing damage to AJA. In
gained the benefit were dishonest duty performance, as specified under Section 89/7 and Paragraph 2 of Section 281/2 of the SEA. The public prosecutor decided not to pursue the case in court and the case
that are difficult to detect. For example, (1) fraudulent transactions through a subsidiary located overseas that has obscure business objectives and is hard to inspect, (2) trading transactions and
to 227.9 mil. baht. - Total expenses increased 9% or 20.1 mil. baht to 244.4 mil. baht due to the following: 1) The Company had just detected a fraudulent practice of our credit supervisor and need to
prepared incorrect accounts with intention to deceive others about those fraudulent actions, violated Sections 307, 308, 311 in conjunction with Section 313, and Section 312(2)(3) of the Securities and
Limited (IFEC), with the Economic Crime Suppression Division of the Royal Thai Police (ECD) for committing dishonest acts to gain unfair advantage for himself or other persons. During the month of December