concealing the identity of the person who was the real user of those accounts.Pattanapong?s action was deemed to be in violation of Section 243 (1) in conjunction with Section 244 and Section 243(2) of the

violation of Section 307, 311, 312(2) in conjunction with 313 of Securities and Exchange Act B.E 2535 ("SEA").On June 28, 2011, the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court convicted Suradej Mookayangkul, the

the 11 investment consultants were deemed a failure to perform duties or provide services honestly as they sought to gain personal benefits from investors through their job operation, or a violation of

inform the client that the holding period had not yet reached 5 calendar years, causing a violation of the specified condition and the client's loss of tax benefits. Failure to give the information or

client?s behalf and failure to keep complete record of securities trading orders were in violation of the Notifications concerning personnel in the capital market*, the SEC therefore suspended {A} from his

cases, none of the aforementioned entities had been licensed to operate securities business. Hence, their actions were in violation of Section 90 and liable to penalties under Section 289 of the

potential change in the securities price is deemed to be taking an unfair advantage of other people. Such action is in violation of Section 241 and liable to the penalties under Section 296 of the Securities

SEC found from conversation records that {A} had obtained authorizations to make trading decisions for the clients. {A}'s actions are deemed in violation of Clause 20(2) and (3) of the Notification of

business without license or registration with the SEC in violation of Section 16 of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) and thus liable under Section 125 of the same Act to imprisonment for a term not

specified by the client. He then made payment to such client for his own securities trading.The aforesaid acts of {A} and {B} were deemed dishonest and unprofessional in violation of Clauses 20(1) and 20(2