securities without approval in the category of debenture in violation of Section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). The SEC has therefore filed separate complaints against the four
by Noppawan and Viroj who allowed their separate trading accounts to be used for the YCI transactions in exchange for compensation.The aforesaid offenses were in violation of Section 243 of the
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
performance of duties, interfering with investors? assets in concealment and creating false evidience in violation of or non-compliance with the notifications of the Capital Market Supervisory Board concerning
conditions. The three persons? offences were in violation of Section 243(1)(2) in conjunction with Section 244, and liable to the punishments under Section 296 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535
duty with responsibility and deliberation as a professional. Her misconduct was in violation of the Notification of the Capital Market Supervisory Board*. The SEC therefore suspended her approval as
and deliberation as a professional. His misconduct was in violation of the Notification of the Capital Market Supervisory Board*. The SEC therefore suspended his approval as securities investment
companies they work for. ________________ *Violation of Clause 20(1) and 20(2) of the Notification of the Capital Market Supervisory Board No. Tor Lor Thor. 3/2555 Re: Approval for Personnel of Business
February 2014 before the information became publicly known on 28 February 2014. Such action was deemed taking an unfair advantage of other people.Chai?s misconduct was in violation of Section 241 and liable
that he continued to submit trading orders in the same manner. The act of Surin constituted a violation of Section 244/3 and will be subject to punishment under Section 296, Section 296/1, and