court. Whereby the Subsidiary Company agreed to transfer the ownership of the mentioned Land and Buildings to settle disputes in this case. The court has ordered according to the aforementioned compromise

provision based on the best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the present obligation by taking into account factors such as the amount of debt relieved by the rehabilitation plan, interest claims

settled, which were actually not. Napasanan used the transferred money to settle transactions made by other clients instead. In addition, it was found that changes were made to the photocopies of her

without authorization and later, when the client found out and rejected such unauthorized transactions, transferred them to another client?s account with a promise to the account owner that he would settle

had to settle the purchase order before regular settlement period in order to avoid force selling. This action was considered that Wiroj failed to inform sufficient information by concealing important

and found that he failed to inform the rules of volatile stock such as stock's risk and settlement duties to the client before submission of purchase order. As a result, the client had to settle the

been received from committing the offenses.* However, they all refused to comply with the civil sanction, which was deemed an indication of their disagreement to settle the case directly with SEC

have been received from committing the offenses.* However, they all refused to comply with the civil sanction, which was deemed an indication of their disagreement to settle the case directly with SEC

instructed JAS to rectify those financial statements by recognizing the provision based on the best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the present obligation by taking into account factors such as

Following the concerns from the last public hearing in 2017 on the revision of the principles and regulations relating to the provident fund to resolve the issue that members did not have adequate