cash or transferred the money to the juristic person claimed to be an agent from Hong Kong SAR or through currency exchange company in Thailand.According to the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003), any
the purpose of law enforcement according to the authority of the three agencies. This includes executing the case with the fined person in a criminal case in order to effectively seize property or
concealing the identity of the person who was the real user of those accounts.Pattanapong?s action was deemed to be in violation of Section 243 (1) in conjunction with Section 244 and Section 243(2) of the
considering which act of the person giving advice or the owner of the website or electronic media is or is not liable to be an undertaking of securities business in the category of investment advisory or an
those applied to person who works in securities business; (3) added clarity on the protection that investors will receive in case of the bankruptcy of the securities depository center as well
in such a way that the receiver of the benefits from such trading is the same person. These offenses were in violation of Sections 243 and 244 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992 (SEA) in
B.E. 2535 (1992), which contains certain provisions that restrict the rights and liberty of a person, which is provided for by virtue of legal provisions, according to Section 29, in combination with
No. KorThor. 3/2551 Re: Additional Determination of Type of Juristic Person Classified as Institutional Investors _____________ By virtue of Clause 3 and Clause 9 of the Derivatives Act B.E.2546 (2003