into the trading. The actions of Sermkirt, Wichian and Pratheep were in violation of Sections 243(1) in conjunction with 244 and 243(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) in conjunction
orders and payment. The said actions were in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). As they agreed to enter the settlement procedure, the Settlement Committee
said actions were in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). As they agreed to enter the settlement procedure, the Settlement Committee therefore imposed fines on {A
the aforementioned information learnt from her position of TUCC chief finance officer. Yongyuth and Vorapin?s actions were in violation of Section 241 which is subject to sanctions under Section 296 of
to other out-of-control wallets without client’ instructions. That actions incurred losses to others and public in violation of Section 85 of Digital Asset Businesses Law. It also violated Section 87
would be required to ensure that there is a separate securities account for each UBO and register for authentication with the BOT or proceed with any other actions for the BOT’s acknowledgement of the
was imposed on {B} for failing to record the clients' securities trading orders.The actions resulted in suspensions occurred while these investment consultants worked with Maybank Kim Eng Securities
{X1} Company shares in his own securities trading account by using the aforementioned information learnt during his directorship in {X1} Company. {A} and {B}'s actions were in violation of Section 241
any actions where conflicts of interest may arise, such as soft commission, related party transaction, proprietary trading and staff dealing. In addition, effective risk management system for
undertaking of digital asset business without license, subject to the offenses under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). The SEC is in consideration for taking further actions