. Her action was deemed failure to perform duty with responsibility, due care, and loyalty for the best interest of the company, which was a violation of Section 89/7 of the SEA. This case is under

authorized director, causing the company to suffer losses. His action was deemed failure to perform duty with responsibility, due care, and loyalty for the best interest of the company, which was a violation

(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

) Mr. Sakesan Baisak and (3) Mr. Partheep Chinsangtip jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and

(2) Mr. Sakesan Baisak and (3) Mr. Partheep Chinsangtip jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and

. Patiphat Supasirisin and (3) Mr. Partheep Chinsangtip jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained

an SECC Holding’s director and executive with responsibility and due care by attending the Board of Directors’ meeting in which the fictitious loans worth Baht 245 million agenda was approved and

for sale of newly issued securities in the category of shares (Private Placement) without approval from the SEC office resulted from the instructions or the failure to give instructions which is a duty

Act of 1992 with the following offences: (1) For her responsibility over PICNI operations in 2004 when she jointly made changes to the contracts to let bottling plants owned by her families or under her

with the following offences: (1) For his responsibility over PICNI operations in 2004 when he jointly made changes to the contracts to let bottling plants owned by his families or under his control rent