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
of Clause 5(1), the foreign collective investment scheme shall: (1) be managed by a CIS operator who: (a) is under supervision of home regulator which has the authority to impose sanctions or to order
by CIS Operator ) [ ] 6. A document demonstrating that the investment policy and product restrictions of NRI CIS are in accordance with those specified by the Notification of the SEC Thailand relating
(issued by CIS Operator) [ ] 6. A document demonstrating that the investment policy and product restrictions of NRI CIS are in accordance with those specified by the Notification of the SEC Thailand
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
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