client's assets were in violation of the Notifications of Capital Market Supervisory Board concerning personnel in the capital market*, the SEC therefore revoked the approval of {A} as capital market

assets were in violation of the Notifications of Capital Market Supervisory Board concerning personnel in the capital market*, the SEC therefore revoked the approval of {A} as capital market investment

behalf of clients was in violation of the Notifications of Capital Market Supervisory Board concerning personnel in the capital market*, the SEC therefore suspended {A} from his duty as the approved

case and found that the aforesaid persons jointly operated securities business without a license in violation of Section 90 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (SEA). The said actions were

provide securities trading service to the account owner or submit trading orders of the written authorized persons action were deemed failure to perform duties which were in violation of the Notification of

account, and using the client?s securities trading account for his own benefits were in violation of the Notifications of Capital Market Supervisory Board concerning personnel in the capital market*, the

the inside information were liable to violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act (SEA) B.E. 2535. Meanwhile, Somsak and Areeya, as aiders and abettors of Pittaya and Athueck, were in

also received benefits from other relevant acts. His action  was deemed a violation of Section 89/7 and subject to penalties prescribed in the second paragraph of Section 281/2, Section 307, Section 311

AGM. According to the consideration of the Department of Business Development, the Ministry of Commerce, Nittimon?s action was in violation of Section 33, Section 102 and Section 105 of the Public

derivatives products to deposit money into banking accounts of two securities companies for Sureerat?s derivatives trading account. Such wrongdoing was in violation of Section 16 of the Derivatives Act B.E