case, none of the aforementioned entities had been licensed to operate securities business. Hence, their actions were in violation of Section 90 and liable to penalties under Section 289 of the

licensed to operate securities business. Hence, their actions were in violation of Section 90 and liable to penalties under Section 289 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992. This case is in the process

Commission inquiring about the conditions, rules, and fees for applying a digital asset exchange license. The aforementioned actions by CoinEx and Mr. Puttipong are deemed to be conducting digital asset

Exchanges Commission inquiring about the conditions, rules, and fees for applying a digital asset exchange license. The aforementioned actions by CoinEx and Mr. Puttipong are deemed to be conducting digital

taking the following actions: (a) collecting and allocating the client’s assets to the client ; (b) transferring the client asset account and the client’s assets to another intermediary ; (c) closing the

taking the following actions: (a) collecting and allocating the client’s assets to the client; (b) transferring the client asset account and the client’s assets to another intermediary; (c) closing the

taking the following actions: (a) collecting and allocating the client’s assets to the client; (b) transferring the client asset account and the client’s assets to another intermediary; (c) closing the

? trading values and volumes and lure the general public to trade such shares.The aforesaid actions were deemed manipulation of TYM share price in violation of Sections 243(1) in conjunction with 244 and 243

CMO shares acquired during the latter period.The aforesaid actions were in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA), the Settlement Committee therefore imposed

equity, (2) the additional capital to ensure business continuity, and (3) the additional capital to cover potential liability risks due to professional negligence. Actions in case of failure to meet the