continuous basis to induce the general public into purchasing or selling such shares. Their actions were in violation of Section 243(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA) and Section 83
, for the benefits of himself and other persons, without properly recording the receipt and withdrawal of such money. Nipaporn and Somchai were found having aided this misconduct.Sompong?s actions were in
offer requirements and the specification of frustration actions that may affect tender offer and which have to be approved by shareholders? resolution. Having taken into account comments and
through the use of client accounts; while {D} was found using a client account to trade securities for her own benefits. In particular, their actions had been aided and abetted by {E} , who then was the
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
providers are still responsible for any actions operated by the outsourced company while the outsourced company must also have the readiness in both personnel and the operating system, and such operation