behalf of clients were in violation of the Notifications of Capital Market Supervisory Board concerning personnel in the capital market*, the SEC therefore suspended {A} from her duty as the approved
behalf of client and seeking benefits from the client during the performance of duties were in violation of the Notifications of Capital Market Supervisory Board concerning personnel in the capital market
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
also received benefits from other relevant acts. His action was deemed a violation of Section 89/7 and subject to penalties prescribed in the second paragraph of Section 281/2, Section 307, Section 311
AGM. According to the consideration of the Department of Business Development, the Ministry of Commerce, Nittimon?s action was in violation of Section 33, Section 102 and Section 105 of the Public
derivatives products to deposit money into banking accounts of two securities companies for Sureerat?s derivatives trading account. Such wrongdoing was in violation of Section 16 of the Derivatives Act B.E
Securities and Exchange Act of 1992. Their actions therefore were in violation of Section 90 and liable to penalties under Section 289, which are imprisonment for a term of 2 to 5 years and a fine from 200,000
involves severely illegal business. For example, human trafficking, drug smuggling or money laundering etc. Moreover, the issuer must not act in violation or non-compliance with the law, which may cause