Thai judgement การใช้คุกกี้​ ก.ล.ต. ใช้คุกกี้จำเป็นเพื่อการทำงานของเว็บไซต์  และอาจใช้คุกกี้ชนิดจดจำข้อมูลซึ่งคุณสามารถเลือกเปิดหรือ

Thai judgement × Home >   กฎหมาย / กฎเกณฑ์ >   คำพิพากษา / คำวินิจฉัย คำพิพากษาและคำวินิจฉัย SHARE

The Civil Sanction Committee passed a resolution imposing a civil sanction on Surasak and Ekkamon in the case of insider trading of GLOBAL shares on 22 August 2012; however, both persons refused to comply with the civil sanction. Later, on 26 February 2018, the public prosecutor filed a legal action against Surasak and Ekkamon with the Civil Court after the SEC had submitted the case for the Court to impose the civil sanction on them in the Undecided Case No. Por. 1060/2561 between the SEC...

involved in financial transaction concerning the purchase of GLOBAL shares. 26/05/2020 The Civil Court delivered The Appeal Court judgement upholding the Civil Court judgement and ordering each party to

rendered a judgement in the Red Case No. Por. 5396/2562, wherein the defendant was required to pay (1) a civil penalty, 1.25 times the benefits that the defendant received or would have received from

company of Siam Cement Public Company Limited, agreed to invest in GLOBAL shares at least 30% of issued shares. 26/05/2020 The Civil Court delivered The Appeal Court judgement upholding the Civil Court

utilizing the inside information for selling IFEC shares on 4 November 2016, totaling 10,153,186 shares, through his own trading account. 22/12/2020 The Appeal Court has rendered a judgement opposing the

derivatives contracts for five years from the Court’s judgement date, (3) to bar him from serving as a director and executive of securities issuing companies and securities companies for 10 years from the

five years from the Court’s judgement date, (3) to bar him from serving as a director and executive of securities issuing companies and listed companies for 10 years from the Court’s judgement date

. Por. 5964/2562. On 22 December 2020, the Appeal Court rendered the judgement,* opposing the Civil Court’s decision. In this regard, the defendant is required to pay civil penalty twice the amount of