other persons regarding the purchase volume or sale volume of those cryptocurrencies. In this regard, Bitkub by Mr. Sakolkorn acknowledged such action but did not oppose. Bitkub’s offence was resulted

while concealing their trading activities to mislead the public regarding the share price and trading volume of BA. Consequently, the BA price and trading volume became inconsistent with normal market

orders or trading the abovementioned stocks in such a way that deceive investors by controlling or artificially affecting the price or volume of the securities; and placing trading orders or trading

on the clients? behalf at a high trading volume and value. Later, the clients demanded her to compensate for losses incurred from trading. In addition, {A} admitted to trading in such manner by giving

wishes to hereby report to the SET on the resolutions earlier adopted at its Board of Directors’ meeting no. 6/2017 on November 9, 2017, authorizing volume limits for various transaction items planned to

wishes to hereby report to the SET on the resolutions earlier adopted at its Board of Directors’ meeting no. 5/2018 on November 12, 2018, authorizing volume limits for various transaction items planned to

wishes to hereby report to the SET on the resolutions earlier adopted at its Board of Directors’ meeting no. 6/2019 on November 11, 2019, authorizing volume limits for various transaction items planned to

share price and trading volume against normal market conditions. In this regard, SEC has found that one of the factors for such trading irregularity was that the true free float of DELTA shares was low

and volume. In addition, a number of trading orders were also matched within the group to induce the public into the trading of RICH shares.  Previously, the Settlement Committee on January 22, 2014

securities trading decisions on behalf of the client. She then continuously made trading decision on behalf of the client for more than three months in high value and volume trades. {A}'s action was deemed as