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
(1992) (SEA); while Usavadee and Perayuth?s actions, as aider and abettor, were in violation of Section 241 of the SEA in conjunction with Section 86 of the Penal Code.As the three persons agreed to enter
violating the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA).On February 21, 2015, the Supreme Court of Thailand sentenced Kanchana to a five-year imprisonment for violating Section 315 in conjunction
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