strictly monitor and supervise their investment consultants to follow such requirements, the SEC may consider that they have inefficient compliance systems and may pursue further actions.?The trading volume
clients. In this regard, the aforesaid actions are in violation of Clause 20(3) of the Notification of Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorLorThor. 3/2555 re: Approval for Personnel of Business
trading orders when obtaining orders from clients. In this regard, the aforesaid actions are in violation of Clause 20(3) of the Notification of Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorLorThor. 3/2555 re
into the trading. The actions of Sermkirt, Wichian and Pratheep were in violation of Sections 243(1) in conjunction with 244 and 243(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) in conjunction
orders and payment. The said actions were in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). As they agreed to enter the settlement procedure, the Settlement Committee
said actions were in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). As they agreed to enter the settlement procedure, the Settlement Committee therefore imposed fines on {A
down the business or delist SPSU shares from the SET. Later, SPI launched a tender offer to purchase SPSU shares at the price higher than the market price during such period. The said actions were in