be liable to the penalty under Sections 312 and 315 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA), as the case may be. The said actions also caused damage to the company but brought about

and shall be liable to the penalty under Sections 312 and 315 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA), as the case may be.  The said actions also caused damages to the company but

Sections 89/24, 278, 281/10 in conjunction with Sections 300, 306, and 315 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA) (as the case may be), the SEC therefore has filed a complaint against

Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992), as amended (SEA), as follows: Apichart’s acts violated Section 242 (1), Eng’s acts violated Sections 242 (2) and 315, and Supanee’s acts violated Section 242 (1

execution of the scheme.Their actions were in violation of Sections 243 (1), (2) in conjunction with Section 244 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) and Sections 83 and 86 of the Penal Code

considered in contravention of the second paragraph of Section 281/2 in conjunction with Sections 89/7, 307 and 311 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA) with Sections 83 and 86 of the

in such a way that the receiver of the benefits from such trading is the same person. These offenses were in violation of Sections 243 and 244 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992 (SEA) in

POWER-P Plc. (POWER), for violating Sections 307, 311 and 312 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA) by collusively falsifying POWER accounts worth totaling 34 million baht with

violation of Sections 243 in conjunction with Section 244 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) in conjunction with Sections 83 and 86 of the Penal Code. As they declined to enter the settlement

million in 2009, respectively.Their actions were in violation of Sections 312 and 315 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA) in conjunction with Sections 83 and 86 of the Penal Code