benefiting himself or others through such misconduct. This is a violation under Section 89/7, with penalties stipulated in Section 281/2, Paragraph 1, of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992), and

Section 89/7 in conjunction with Section 281/2 of the same act. For further legal proceedings, the SEC has ordered Mr. Suphanan to make clarification in this matter by 21 July. With regards to the

According to the first paragraph of Section 23 of Provident Fund Act, when an employee’s membership terminates on a cause other than the dissolution of the fund, the fund manager shall make

Department of Special Investigation (DSI) for further legal proceedings.Their actions were in contravention of the first paragraph of Section 281/2 in conjunction with Section 89/7 of the Securities and

the board of directors of listed companies is obligated to perform duties with care, responsibility and honesty in accordance with Section 89/7 of the Securities and Exchange Act, the SEC, by virtue of

report, the SEC probed into the case and found that the said companies and persons, without obtaining license under Section 90 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (SEA), jointly operated

gather information in a case of using inside information to purchase shares of a listed company in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (SEA). {A}, a financial advisor

Company Act.? In this regard, the SEC has taken into consideration the DBD?s ruling in conjunction with Section 89/7 of the SEA which prescribes duties of directors and executives of listed companies and

February 2014 before the information became publicly known on 28 February 2014. Such action was deemed taking an unfair advantage of other people.Chai?s misconduct was in violation of Section 241 and liable

Securities and Exchange Act of 1992. Their actions therefore were in violation of Section 90 and liable to penalties under Section 289, which are imprisonment for a term of 2 to 5 years and a fine from 200,000