trigger for a mandatory tender offer of the total NMG shares sold. In so doing, they failed to report their acquisitions, and did not make the tender offer for NMG takeover.As a result, their actions were
consultant to do so. Auracha's actions were deemed as (1) failure to perform duties or provide services honestly, (2) misconduct upon the client's asset, (3) use of the client's trading account to trade
was no evidence that the client had ordered the responsible investment consultant to do so. Auracha?s actions were deemed as (1) failure to perform duties or provide services honestly, (2) misconduct
trading period to be inconsistent with normal market conditions to mislead other persons that CHUO shares were in high demand at the time and lure them to trade such shares accordingly. His offense was in
normal market condition became affected during 9 January - 28 February 2013.Such offences were in violation of Section 243 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992 (SEA) in conjunction with Section 83
economy. Besides, sustainability development through corporate social responsibility and corporate governance were emphasized to increase their awareness and implementation. In addition, this time it was
client's child, as well as sometimes taking orders via mobile phone.{A}'s actions were deemed as obtaining authorization from client to make securities trading decisions on behalf of client; taking
} were in violation of Clause 20(2) of the Notification of the Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorLorThor. 3/2555 Re: Approval for Personnel of Business Operator to Perform Duties of Analyzing
admitted that he had been authorized by his clients to enter securities trading orders on the clients' behalf and then inform such client via mobile phone after the trades were executed. {A} also admitted
client's account without the client's order and failing to perform in accordance with the client's order were in violation of the Notifications of Capital Market Supervisory Board concerning personnel in the