Commission No. OrNor. 7/2547 Re: Arbitral Process (No. 3) dated 13 October 2004. Clause 3. In this Notification: “respondent” means any of the followings: (1) a securities company; (2) a local share selling

: Arbitral Process (No. 3) dated 13 October 2004. Clause 3. In this Notification: “respondent” means any of the followings: (1) a securities company; (2) a local share selling agent; (3) a mutual fund

(No. 3) dated 13 October 2004. Clause 3. In this Notification: “respondent” means any of the followings: (1) a securities company; (2) a local share selling agent; (3) a mutual fund supervisor; (4) a

order or an action which results in the offence that the company operated digital asset exchange businesses without a license. The Court of Appeal adjudicated that the defendant was guilty under Section

violation of Section 315 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535. On October 7, 2020, the Criminal Court sentenced the defendant to 10 years in prison. The defendant exercised the right to appeal. The

defendants, including Polaris Capital Public Company Limited ("1st defendant"), Mr. Yanakorn Warakunrak ("2nd defendant"), and Mr. Poonsak Chumchuay ("3rd defendant"), had

Capital Public Company Limited ("1st defendant"), Mr. Yanakorn Warakunrak ("2nd defendant"), and Mr. Poonsak Chumchuay ("3rd defendant"), had committed an offense under the

Capital Public Company Limited ("1st defendant"), Mr. Yanakorn Warakunrak ("2nd defendant"), and Mr. Poonsak Chumchuay ("3rd defendant"), had committed an offense under the

order or an action which results in the offence that the company offered digital tokens to the public without an approval from the SEC Office. The Court of Appeal adjudicated that the defendant was guilty

adjudicated that the defendant was guilty under Section 17 paragraph one, Section 26, Section 57, and Section 66 of the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). The defendant’s act constituted