, and using inside information for trading Roynet shares in violation of Section 300 with Section 56, Sections 59, 238, 241, 246 and 312 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA). The
construction projects, despite the fact that the services did not exist, with intent to deceive other persons. The said action was in violation of Section 312 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992
Section 241 and the punishments under Section 296 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA). Currently, such act is deemed an offence under Section 242 and subject to the punishments under
Section 22 of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003), the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission hereby issues the following regulations: Clause 1. Operators of derivatives business wishing to apply
_____________ By virtue of the second paragraph of Section 22 of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003), the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission hereby issues the following regulations: Clause 1
the Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorThor. 93/2552 Re: Rules for Undertaking Derivatives Brokerage Business Overseas for derivatives Brokers (codified) By virtue of Section 18 of the Derivatives
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
penalty under Section 300 in conjunction with Section 278 and Section 302/1 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (the “Securities and Exchange Act”). This case is in the process of inquiry by the