being traded in great volume and the price was changing inconsistently with normal market conditions, to lure the public into trading such shares. Somchai?s offense was in violation of Section 243 (1
Line at 1207 for further inspection. Any act found to be liable to an offense under the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) may be subject to legal action under the law, with both
Center via 24-hour Hot Line at 1207 for further inspection. Any act found to be liable to an offense under the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992), the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) or the
services liable to be an undertaking of digital asset business in the category of digital asset exchange without license, which is deemed a violation or a failure to comply with Section 26 of the Emergency
of debenture without approval in violation of Section 33 and subject to the penalties under Section 268 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA); meanwhile, Ornpaphat and Kanyakorn
which were investment in gold futures, not spot gold. Accordingly, the actions of G.O.L. (Thailand) were in violation of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003), Section 16, subject to sanctions under
trading period to be inconsistent with normal market conditions to mislead other persons that CHUO shares were in high demand at the time and lure them to trade such shares accordingly. His offense was in
such periods of time, there were high demands for FVC stocks and subsequently entering into the trading of such stocks as well. The actions of the 13 persons above were liable to be an offense under
) untrustworthy characteristics on the ground of demeanors in the nature of offense pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) prior to the Amendment by the Securities and Exchange Act (No. 5) B.E
(2016). In the case of Preeya, she assisted or facilitated Woraphant in his wrongdoing under Section 242(1), which was in violation of Section 315, in conjunction with Section 242(1) and subject to the