trading orders when obtaining orders from clients. In this regard, the aforesaid actions are in violation of Clause 20(3) of the Notification of Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorLorThor. 3/2555 re
into the trading. The actions of Sermkirt, Wichian and Pratheep were in violation of Sections 243(1) in conjunction with 244 and 243(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) in conjunction
orders and payment. The said actions were in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). As they agreed to enter the settlement procedure, the Settlement Committee
said actions were in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). As they agreed to enter the settlement procedure, the Settlement Committee therefore imposed fines on {A
violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). As they agreed to enter the settlement procedure, the Settlement Committee fined {A} 2,580,211.77 baht, {B} 2,948,813.46 baht and
the transactions. Failure to record the client's securities trading orders and obtaining authorization to make securities trading decisions on behalf of the client are, respectively, in violation of
PICNI containing materially false or incorrect statement in order to deceive others. The action was violation of Section 312 of Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535. The Appeal Court overturned the
containing materially false or incorrect statement in order to deceive others. The action was violation of Section 312 of Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 The Appeal Court overturned the judgment of the
business. Hence, their actions were in violation of Section 90 and liable to penalties under Section 289 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992. On November 21, 2022, the Samutprakan Provincial Court