Capital Market Supervisory Board. On August 10, 2018, the Criminal Court ruled against him for violating Sections 247 and 298 of the SEC Act conjunction. Since the defendant pleaded guilty, the court
ruled against the accused for violating Sections 90, 289 of the SEC Act and Section 83 of the Criminal Code. Since the accused pleaded guilty, the court sentenced the accused to imprisonment for a term of
committing unlicensed digital asset exchange offense. On March 7, 2024, the Criminal Court ruled against the accused for violating Section 3, 26 and 66 of the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E
investment company, and shall also issue and impose disciplinary measures on violating listed companies by posting investor alert signs and determining a grace period. In case of failure to proceed as
in minute of IEC?s board of directors meeting with intention to deceitfully deprive IEC or its shareholders of their rightful benefit, dishonestly violating his duties and causing damage to the
violating Sections 307, 308, 311 in conjunction with Section 313, and Section 312(2)(3) of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA). He was sentenced to serve 8-year imprisonment for corporate
public prosecutor then filed the case with the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court where only the charge against Kittipat was accepted.The Southern Bangkok Criminal Court today convicted Kittipat for violating
Pattiya (or Pattiyawongse) to a three-year imprisonment for violating Section 90 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E.2535 while undertaking businesses of securities brokerage and dealing under the name
Court ruled against the accused for violating Section 56, Section 274 paragraph 1, and Section 300 of the SEA. As the accused committed the several distinct and different offences, the Court inflicted the