. 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

sustained marketing campaigns to promote value set-menu offerings or accumulation of loyalty points to redeem special priced products, together wth advertising and PR campaigns in various media that included

ๆ เช่น - บัตรกำนัลดิจิทัล (digital voucher) คูปอง คะแนนสะสม (loyalty point) ทีอ่ยู่ในรูปแบบ โทเคนดิจิทัลบนระบบ digital ledger technology (DLT) หรือหน่วยอิเล็กทรอนิกส์ใด ๆ - บัตรคอนเสิร์ต บัตรชม

(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