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
benefit, the actual price was 40 million baht. Therefore, their acts were considered that they dishonestly violated duties as well as obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person and caused
benefit, the actual price was 40 million baht. Therefore, their acts were considered that they dishonestly violated duties as well as obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person and caused
benefit, the actual price was 40 million baht. Therefore, their acts were considered that they dishonestly violated duties as well as obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person and caused
Mr.Apichart's benefit, the actual price was 40 million baht. Therefore, their acts were considered that they dishonestly violated duties as well as obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person
Mr. SomChai Kurujitkosol The public prosecutor issued a non-prosecution order. The case was deemed final. SEC Act S.287 Criminal Complaint Filed with an Inquiry Official Dated 17/06/2009
. The public prosecutor issued a non-prosecution order. The case was deemed final. DV Act S.343 of the Penal Code Criminal Complaint Filed with an Inquiry Official Dated 18/12/2009
of the Derivatives Act B.E.2546 (2003). The public prosecutor issued a non-prosecution order. The case was deemed final. DV Act S.16 Criminal Complaint Filed with an Inquiry Official Dated 23/06
Act B.E.2546 (2003). The public prosecutor issued a non-prosecution order. The case was deemed final. DV Act S.16 Criminal Complaint Filed with an Inquiry Official Dated 23/06/2010
Section 16 of the Derivatives Act B.E.2546 (2003). The public prosecutor issued a non-prosecution order. The case was deemed final. DV Act S.16 Criminal Complaint Filed with an Inquiry Official Dated 23