the SEC Act. The Court inflicted the punishment of 2-year imprisonment. Since the defendant pleaded guilty, the Court reduced the punishments by half, resulting in 1-year imprisonment. The case was

. The Court inflicted the punishment of 2-year imprisonment. Since the defendant pleaded guilty, the Court reduced the punishments by half, resulting in 1-year imprisonment. The case was deemed final

sequences according to Section 91 of the Penal Code. The Court inflicted punishment on Suradej for violating his duties as director who (1) made false entries in the meeting?s minutes to deceitfully deprive

sentenced the accused to three year imprisonment. As the accused’s plea was useful to proceeding, the Court reduced the punishment by one-third, resulting in two year imprisonment. SEC Act S.90 and Section

shall be liable for the punishment under Paragraph 1 of Section 283 of the SEA amended by the Securities and Exchange Act (No. 6) B.E. 2562. The public prosecutor issued a prosecution order; however

punishment under Paragraph 1 of Section 283 of the SEA amended by the Securities and Exchange Act (No. 6) B.E. 2562. The public prosecutor issued a prosecution order; however, attempt to arrest the juristic

, the Court imposed the punishment prescribed for each offence* on him totaling 16-year and 36-month imprisonment and a fine of 3,760,000 baht. Considering the fact of confession, however, the Court

relating to disciplinary punishment for members’ demeanor to the SEC Office without delay; (b) disclosing information relating to [i] violations or offences in connection with asset appraisal or failing to

committed the several distinct and different offences, the Court inflicted the punishment prescribed for each offence as follows: (1) for 18 counts of dishonest and failure to discharge his duty as director

specified that the maximum punishment  for the offences in (1) and (2) was to the maximum of 20 years. The Court, therefore, sentenced Sondhi, Saovaluck, and Yupin to 20 year imprisonment each