Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA). The findings previously led to the sanctions imposed on ING Funds, Maris and Burim. In this connection, the SEC further probed into the case and found that from January 5

loss. Their actions were in violation of Section 241, subject to sanctions under Section 296 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). On June 18, 2014, Yongyuth and Vorapin agreed to enter

from the latest Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) in 2019, requesting SEC to amend the Securities and Exchange Act to impose sanctions on the audit firms in the capital market.“In addition

Section 296 and Section 296/2, as well as civil sanctions under Section 317/1, Section 317/4 and Section 317/5 of the Securities and Exchange Act (No. 5) B.E. 2559 (2016).Ravi agreed to the civil sanction

penalties and civil sanctions.  -------------------------------

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

securities law, pushing forward the enactment of important laws, and strengthening sanctions against non-compliances.Furthermore, the SEC plans to drive the Thai capital market to become a regional investment

from December 31, 2011.  Details of the sanctions are as follows: Ten-year revocations: 1. Aunyapat Aroonjarhuspong (formerly named Nathaphan Jaiudom), an investor contact of KGI Securities (Thailand

committed an offense under the lawsuit of the plaintiff. The Civil Court also imposed civil sanctions as follows: (1) The 1st defendant shall pay the civil penalty in the amount of 2,000,000 Baht with

amendments have been proposed in parallel, such as pushing forward the civil sanctions for the consideration of National Legislative Assembly of Thailand. The proposed amendment of the Securities and Exchange