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

Bangkok, September 10, 2013 ? The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Association of Investment Management Companies (AIMC) agree on introducing investment risk management guideline and

documents. The SEC, therefore, considers the tender offeror has not yet submitted the tender offer in accordance with Section 247 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535. Earlier, the SEC received

loss. Their actions were in violation of Section 241, subject to sanctions under Section 296 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). On June 18, 2014, Yongyuth and Vorapin agreed to enter

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

the completeness of the information before distributing to shareholders. In this regard, the revised rules together with the silent period measures prescribed by the Stock Exchange of Thailand are

, participated in international forums in exchange of views, experiences as well as solutions and applied to the Thai market circumstances, for example.?  The above report is now available in Thai on the SEC

were all sold out during low price period.  The said actions were in violation of Section 311 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA) in conjunction with Section 83 of the Penal Code

licensed to operate securities business in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992. Their actions are in violation of Section 90 and liable to the penalties under Section 289, i.e

in violation of Section 246 and Section 247 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992, in conjunction with Section 83 of the Penal Code. The three offenders refused to enter the criminal fining