Shareholder director held criminally liable for fraud against the company despite corporate veil arguments.

The court dismissed the defendant's claim of limited liability, ruling that the managing director bears personal criminal responsibility for fraud harming the company. The prosecution argued that the director's actions directly caused financial loss, while the defense contended that the corporate structure should shield them from criminal charges. The court rejected this distinction, establishing that individual criminal liability persists regardless of the corporate entity's separate legal personality in cases of direct fraud.