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

of the Penal Code. The Settlement Committee, therefore, imposed fines on Bordin and Noparat at the amounts of 5,870,805 baht and 500,000 baht, respectively. Worathan?s actions were liable to violation

website, and soliciting the public to invest in the shares of the companies, Benson Dupont Capital Management and Morgan Pacific via the telephone. These actions caused investors to suffer damages of

illustrating making trading decision before client acknowledgement. The client then acknowledged the transactions without any objection and made payment completely.  {A}'s actions were deemed using client

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

the clients.  They cannot make securities trading decisions on behalf of clients, regardless of the client's permission.  In this regard, the aforesaid {A}'s actions are in violation of Clause 20(2) of

shares of which accounted for his trading. It was 87.11% increase in SSI total trading volume. After he stopped trading, SSI trading volume dropped to 48.85 million shares.His actions caused SSI share

) Intermediaries: Surveillance, monitoring, inspection and investigation of business operators and related capital market personnel;(5) Enforcement: Legal actions against the violators;(6) Toward international

actions, as aider and abettor, were in violation of Section 241 of the SEA in conjunction with Section 86 of the Penal Code.As the three persons agreed to enter the settlement procedure, the Settlement