CMO shares acquired during the latter period.The aforesaid actions were in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA), the Settlement Committee therefore imposed
offences committed by Bordin and Noparat were liable to violation of Section 243(1) in conjunction with Section 244 and Section 243(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act (SEA) B.E. 2535 (1992) and Section 83
normal market condition became affected during 9 January - 28 February 2013.Such offences were in violation of Section 243 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992 (SEA) in conjunction with Section 83
their trading accounts and facilitating financial transactions via the accounts.{A}'s action was in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA); while {B} and {C}'s
Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA), as the case may be. The said actions also caused damage to the company but brought about benefits to Mr. Suthisak Lohsawat and a juristic person whose major shareholders
(1992) (SEA), in conjunction with Section 83 of the Criminal Code, subject to penalties under Section 296, Section 296/2 and civil sanctions under Section 317/4 and Section 317/5 of the SEA. The Civil
subject to penalties under Section 296, Section 296/2, as well as civil sanctions under Section 317/4 and Section 317/5 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA); (2) Mrs. Teo Lee Ngo
Section 243(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (SEA) and Section 83 of the Penal Code. The Settlement Committee therefore imposed fines on them in the amounts of 36,815,524.26 baht, 500,000
Section 243(1) in conjunction with Section 244 and Section 243(2), and subject to the penalties under Section 296 of the Securities and Exchange Act (SEA). Currently, the offense is specified under Section
Surapol was deemed a contravention of Section 242(1) in conjunction with Section 243(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA). These individuals are subject to the penalties under