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

information to sell IFEC shares, to pay civil penalty and compensation for the benefits gained from committing the offense. However, Suphanan did not agree to comply with the civil sanction. Later, on 27

return any gains from the wrongdoings.* Mr. Thanawat came in to acknowledge the civil sanctions, but did not consent to comply with the punishment terms within the specified time. The SEC has

guidelines would not impose excessive burdens on audit firms and auditors and would specify penalty alternatives that focus on appropriate proportionality of punishment to offense.  The consultation paper

that  he continued to submit trading orders in the same manner. The act of Surin constituted a violation of Section 244/3 and will be subject to punishment under Section 296, Section 296/1, and

such sanction; however, they refused to pay the civil penalty. Consequently, the SEC forwarded the case for the public attorney to bring a further legal action in the Civil Court. In this regard, a

penalized {B} by transferring her to perform duties unrelated to provision of services for sales of securities products from 25 December 2018 to 16 April 2020, which exceeded the penalty period imposed by

punishment of 2-year imprisonment and 8,000,000 Baht fine. Since the defendant pleaded guilty, the Court reduced the punishments by half, resulting in 1-year imprisonment and 4,000,000 baht. The jail term was

Court ruled against him for violating Sections 243(1) 244(2) and 296 of the SEC Act conjunction with Section 83 of the Penal Code regarding METRO and TUCC shares. The Court inflicted the punishment of 2