were in violation of the Notifications of Capital Market Supervisory Board concerning personnel in the capital market*. The SEC, therefore, suspended Acting Subbieutant Saroj from his duty as the

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 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

on {B} and {C}, respectively, for collusively trading TWZ shares with the intention to induce the general public into buying or selling such shares in violation of Sections 243 (2) of the SEA and