its revenue from providing mobile phone service during the subscribers protection period starting from its entering into the interim subscribers protection measure pursuant to the NBTC’s Notification on

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

. 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

(6) Mr. Tanyapisist Saprod and (7) Miss Metta Poking jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and

jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which

jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which

jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which

jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which

jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which