failure to comply with the SEC?s order, the company and its responsible management are liable to violation of Section 58 (3) of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) with penalties under Section

and Clause 4(3) of the Notification of the Securities and Exchange Commission No. Kor Jor 8/2553 Re: Determination of the Untrusthworthy Characteristics of Company Directors and Executives dated 23

advance notice, if the outsourcees are: financial institutions, subsidiaries of the business operator, audit firms where the SEC-approved auditors work, the Stock Exchange of Thailand or its subsidiaries

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

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