in violation of Section 246 and Section 247 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992, in conjunction with Section 83 of the Penal Code. The three offenders refused to enter the criminal fining

received but in any case no less than 500,000 baht, or both.Paweena, Punnaporn, Warunya and Trairath refused to enter the criminal fining process. The SEC therefore filed a criminal complaint with the DSI

(1) Marnfah Group and (2) Ornpaphat agreed to pay a separate, equal fine of 500,000 baht, while (3) Kanyahorn agreed to pay a fine of 1,530,000 baht. On the contrary, (4) Lederer (Thailand) refused to

Disri refused to comply, which reflected their unwillingness to settle the case with the SEC at this stage. The SEC, therefore, sent a written request to the public prosecutor to file a lawsuit against

and Viroj with the DSI for further legal proceeding because they refused to enter the fining process with the Criminal Fining Committee. The other five offenders in the case, on the other hand, have

taking an unfair advantage of other persons in violation of Section 241 and liable to the penalties under Section 296 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992.In this case, the offender refused to enter

shares while {D}, as investor contact, had facilitated internet tradings through accounts of {A}, {B} and {C}. {A} and {D}, however, refused to enter the settlement process.Consequently, {D} is deemed to

offenders had refused to enter the settlement process. In addition, Nongluck and Adirek, as approved investor contact, are deemed to have prohibited characteristics of capital market personnel pursuant to

was consequently liable to the penalties as prescribed in the first paragraph of Section 281/2 of the SEA.  Since Nittimon had refused to enter the settlement process, the SEC filed the complaint with

such sanction; however, they refused to pay the civil penalty. Consequently, the SEC forwarded the case for the public attorney to bring a further legal action in the Civil Court. In this regard, a