which were investment in gold futures, not spot gold. Accordingly, the actions of G.O.L. (Thailand) were in violation of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003), Section 16, subject to sanctions under

report, the SEC probed into the case and found that the said companies and persons, without obtaining license under Section 90 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (SEA), jointly operated

gather information in a case of using inside information to purchase shares of a listed company in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (SEA). {A}, a financial advisor

Company Act.? In this regard, the SEC has taken into consideration the DBD?s ruling in conjunction with Section 89/7 of the SEA which prescribes duties of directors and executives of listed companies and

February 2014 before the information became publicly known on 28 February 2014. Such action was deemed taking an unfair advantage of other people.Chai?s misconduct was in violation of Section 241 and liable

derivatives products to deposit money into banking accounts of two securities companies for Sureerat?s derivatives trading account. Such wrongdoing was in violation of Section 16 of the Derivatives Act B.E

Securities and Exchange Act of 1992. Their actions therefore were in violation of Section 90 and liable to penalties under Section 289, which are imprisonment for a term of 2 to 5 years and a fine from 200,000

: www.mpf.co.id, www.ascotfx.com and www.maxglobalbullion.com.From the SEC?s finding, these firms operated a derivatives business without license or registration with the SEC, in violation of Section 16 of the

person undertaking derivatives business without obtaining proper authorization from the SEC in contravention of Section 16 of the Act shall be criminally liable under Section 125 of  the Act. The SEC

matched to benefit the same persons, which is liable to contravention of Section 243 (1) (2) and Section 244 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992 and Sections 83 and 86 of the Criminal Code, as the