unprofessional and dishonest acts. Her actions were in violation of Clause 14(1) and (2) of the Notification of the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission No. SorKhor. 49/2552 Re: Approval for Investor
and the persons from (3) to (7) were in violation of Section 243(1) in conjunction with Section 244 and Section 243(2), and liable to the punishments under Section 296 of the Securities and Exchange Act
Division of the Royal Thai Police (ECD) for jointly operating the digital asset dealer business without license in violation of Section 26 and subject to the penalties under Section 66 of the Emergency
the SEC website, in order for the SEC to conduct further in-dept investigations. Any activities liable to violation of laws enforced by the SEC may be subject to legal action, which could result in both
cooperation for the regulator, as well as lacked of professional ethics and securities business conduct. Such actions are considered in violation of the SEC?s Notification No. SorThor/Nor.13/2542 Re
securities brokerage without a license in violation of Section 90 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) in corroboration with Section 83 of the Criminal Code. Concurrently, the SEC filed
. According to the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003), any person undertaking derivatives business without obtaining proper authorization from the SEC is in violation of Section 16 of the Act. In addition, the
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
approval from the SEC was in violation of Section 33 and subject to the penalties under Section 268 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA). The Criminal Fining Committee therefore has
the inside information were liable to violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act (SEA) B.E. 2535. Meanwhile, Somsak and Areeya, as aiders and abettors of Pittaya and Athueck, were in