investment units in the portion yet to satisfy the minimum of 5 year investment.The said action was a violation of conditions prescribed by the Revenue Department, causing the client to pay back tax deductions
trading order and the similar failure was found during the second investigation, in case of another client. Failure to record the securities trading orders was in violation of the Notifications of Capital
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
of Business Development, the Ministry of Commerce, Nittimon’s action was in violation of Section 33, Section 102 and Section 105 of the Public Companies Act of 1992, which do not give chairman of
house, regulatory association of derivatives business operators or information relating to any violation and penalty imposed on the violators under this Act, including any other information obtained in
house, regulatory association of derivatives business operators or information relating to any violation and penalty imposed on the violators under this Act, including any other information obtained in
until Satang Corporation Company Limited shall improve and correct the violation properly. However, the mentioned amount of fines does not include daily fines starting from the day following the
imposed a fine until Satang Corporation Company Limited shall improve and correct the violation properly. However, the mentioned amount of fines does not include daily fines starting from the day following
. Meanwhile, the given information must be true. Nonetheless, giving false information to the SEC or the DSI constitutes violation of law and subject to criminal penalties.
operating activities of BLISS. The aforesaid action was in violation of Section 238 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992), the Settlement Committee therefore imposed a fine on him in the amount