licensed to operate securities business in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992. Their actions are in violation of Section 90 and liable to the penalties under Section 289, i.e
offences committed by Bordin and Noparat were liable to violation of Section 243(1) in conjunction with Section 244 and Section 243(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act (SEA) B.E. 2535 (1992) and Section 83
securities business pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992. His action was in violation of Section 90 and liable to penalties under Section 289, which are imprisonment for a term of 2 to 5 years
had not been sufficient. This caused the client about 3,000,000 Baht in damage. In this regard, the aforesaid actions are in violation of Clause 20(1) and (2) of the Notification of Capital Market
shares through such provided account, and obtained profit sharing according to the proportion invested among three of them.Choavalit?s action was in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange
securities trading decisions on behalf of client was in violation of the Notifications of Capital Market Supervisory Board concerning personnel in the capital market*, the SEC therefore suspended Atthapol from
suffer loss.Failure to give proper investment advices on generally accepted professional standards, guarantee returns from investment and failure to carry out order of the client were in violation of the
materiality for the client's investment decision was considered failure to perform duties with responsibility and due care as the capital market professional which was in violation of the Notifications of
their trading accounts and facilitating financial transactions via the accounts.{A}'s action was in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA); while {B} and {C}'s
have been disclosed, in materiality, in the Filing Form, in violation of Section 278 of the SEA. This offense of ETL at the time was a result of orders or omissions of duties of nine persons who were