execution of the scheme.Their actions were in violation of Sections 243 (1), (2) in conjunction with Section 244 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) and Sections 83 and 86 of the Penal Code
securities without approval in the category of debenture in violation of Section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). The SEC has therefore filed separate complaints against the four
considered in contravention of the second paragraph of Section 281/2 in conjunction with Sections 89/7, 307 and 311 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA) with Sections 83 and 86 of the
, respectively, to lure the investing public into their businesses.The aforesaid acts are deemed undertaking derivatives business without license in contravention of Section 16 of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546
Section 83 of the Penal Code. Both persons, however, failed to pay the fines. The SEC therefore filed the criminal complaint against them with the DSI for further criminal proceedings. Also named in the
violation of Sections 243 in conjunction with Section 244 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) in conjunction with Sections 83 and 86 of the Penal Code. As they declined to enter the settlement
lawsuit against them with the Bangkok South Criminal Court.The Bangkok South Criminal Court ruled against both defendants as principals on two counts in accordance with Section 42 Chor (1), (2) of the
case and found that the aforesaid persons jointly operated securities business without a license in violation of Section 90 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (SEA). The said actions were
unlawful gains for the benefit of herself and others, in violation of Section 311 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA). Phra Suthep Arpassaro (Panpai) and Vachala Pisitsak were also