. KorThor. 12/2553 Re: Determination of Undertaking not Deemed as a Derivatives Dealer By virtue of Section 3 and Section 9 of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) which contains certain provisions relating

2. Mrs. Jirapa Titachotinimit (Former name is Miss Jirapa Ingpongpun.) Engaging in providing rebates to clients, which are not deemed as benefits customary to services rendered in the normal course

action was deemed a violation of Section 16 of the Derivatives Act B.E.2546 (2003). This case is under consideration of the public prosecutor. DV Act S.16 Criminal Complaint Filed with an Inquiry

statements for the six-month period ended June 30, 2008 to the SEC and the SET within the specified period. The public prosecutor issued a non-prosecution order; the case was therefore deemed final. SEC Act

from a client?s account, which was deemed a breach of duty. She was also found to have acted in such a way that indicated dishonesty to the bank. In this regard, Sarinrat was deemed having prohibited

, Chupong was deemed to have performed duties dishonestly. In this regard, Chupong, were deemed to have committed offences in violation Section 311 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992 (SEA), and

90 and subject to sanctions under Section 289. The public prosecutor issued a non-prosecution order. The case was deemed final. SEC Act S.90 Criminal Complaint Filed with an Inquiry Official Dated

289. The public prosecutor issued a non-prosecution order. The case was deemed final. SEC Act S.90 Criminal Complaint Filed with an Inquiry Official Dated 09/03/2015

under Section 289. The public prosecutor issued a non-prosecution order. The case was deemed final. SEC Act S.90 Criminal Complaint Filed with an Inquiry Official Dated 09/03/2015

? accounts that he borrowed the money from, for other?s or his own benefits. The SEC reviewed and found that Chalerm?s actions were deemed fraudulent, deceitful, interference with clients? assets with the