had to settle the purchase order before regular settlement period in order to avoid force selling. This action was considered that Wiroj failed to inform sufficient information by concealing important
purchase order before regular settlement period in order to avoid force selling. This action was considered that {A} failed to inform sufficient information by concealing important information that might
quarter during the past three years (2007-2009). {A} had access to this inside information by virtue of his position as a {X1} director at that time.{A}' s action was deemed the violation of Section 241 of
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
operating activities of BLISS. The aforesaid action was in violation of Section 238 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992), the Settlement Committee therefore imposed a fine on him in the amount
account to trade securities for the benefit of themselves or others. {H}'s action was deemed performing duties beyond the scope of employment, taking advantage of client by virtue of duties, and giving
ก่อการร้าย (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism : AML/CFT) ตลอดจนความร่วมมือระหว่างหน่วยงานที่เกี่ยวข้องและการเตรียมความพร้อมให้เป็นไปตามมาตรฐานสากล Financial Action Task
conducted under the topic “AI Governance & Quantum NIST PQC in Action (for the 2nd Line)” with Dr. Prinya Hom‑Anek, President of ISACA Bangkok Chapter, serving as the keynote speaker. He shared knowledge and
ถ่ายทอดความรู้และแชร์ประสบการณ์ในหัวข้อ “AI Governance & Quantum NIST PQC in Action (สำหรับ 1st Line)” เพื่อช่วยให้องค์กรสามารถบริหารจัดการความเสี่ยงด้านเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศได้อย่างเป็นระบบและยั่งยืน โดยมี
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