Earlier, Mr. Suphanan acting on behalf of IFEC sent a letter requesting the DBD to reveiw its order denying the registration of Mr. Wiphu Maharakkhaka and Mr. Manusak Deawwanich on IFEC directors’ list and then may exercise the right to appeal such DBD’s decision.According to Section 42 of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996), an administrative order shall be effective since the person concerned is notified and shall remain in effect until it is revoked or invalid for other re...

directed TIES to rectify its 2014 financial statements due to the auditor?s qualified opinion in relation to the construction cost reports for construction contracts not prepared in accordance with its

not lose the money if making investment decision on the advice. Furthermore, {A} failed to immediately submit orders to close out derivatives positions as directed by the client, causing the client to

accessibility. A concerted effort was also directed towards elevating investor awareness and education in the realm of bond investment. The overarching aim was to strengthen the credibility of the Thai bond

statements. Accordingly, TIES must submit to the SEC and publicly disclose the financial statements, urgently. Earlier, the SEC had directed TIES to rectify its 2014 financial statements due to the auditor’s

. However, Mr. Suphanan failed to perform his duty as directed and submitted a clarification letter to the SEC. The SEC considered his explanation inadmissible. The SEC has viewed that Mr. Suphanan’s

statement as of June 30, 2017 and the Company’s unstable profitability and unfavorable of steel industry which caused the Company might not be able to receive source of funds from other financial institutes

on its current financial statement as of June 30, 2017 and the Company’s unstable profitability and unfavorable of steel industry which caused the Company might not be able to receive source of funds

18.90% increased, while sale revenue only increase by 11.06% results in less profit margin compare to the year 2017 at 24.25 million baht, due to the unstable of production cost of new production line

orders from such client. They just submitted trading orders as directed by {A}. Furthermore, they had never conducted KYC/CDD for the client because {A} prohibited them from doing so. Also, {B} received