’ instruction and refused to facilitate a meeting venue for the board of directors’ meeting. Such misconduct was therefore deemed as the failure to perform his duties as a listed-company director and executive
have refused to comply with the civil sanctions imposed by the CSC. It is thus considered that they have refused to end the cases according to the SEC proceedings. The SEC has therefore submitted a
behaviors could be construed as obstructive since he has made no effort to convene an urgent shareholders meeting to appoint new directors. For example, he refused to attend the board of directors’ meetings
been received from committing the offenses.* However, they all refused to comply with the civil sanction, which was deemed an indication of their disagreement to settle the case directly with SEC
have been received from committing the offenses.* However, they all refused to comply with the civil sanction, which was deemed an indication of their disagreement to settle the case directly with SEC
investigative expenses incurred by the SEC), refused to comply with the specified civil sanctions, which was deemed unwillingness to settle the case with the SEC at this stage. The SEC, therefore, has requested
result, their actions were 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
three offenders refused to enter the criminal fining process. The SEC, therefore, filed the criminal complaint with the ECD Police for further legal proceedings. This case is under consideration of the
Earlier, the Civil Sanction Committee decided to impose civil penalties against the 40 offenders for manipulating AJD shares* but they either failed to acknowledge or refused to comply with the