clients? behalf.The misconducts of Veerachai and Jakkrit were deemed interference with clients? assets in concealment, fabrication of false evidence and exploitation of investors? trading accounts to seek

with them. Some even gave authorization for the companies? staff to submit trading orders on their behalf.The said actions were deemed as undertaking derivatives business without license in contravention

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

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

brought about benefits to Suthisak and a juristic person whose major shareholders are Darunee and Paphawin. Their actions were therefore deemed in contravention of and shall be liable to the penalty under

the change of {X1} share prices.   {A}' s action was deemed as using inside information in such a way as to take advantage of other persons in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act

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

possesses strong financial position and reliability. It is, therefore, deemed necessary to determine the minimum paid-up registered capital of such person.

, deemed necessary to determine the minimum paid-up registered capital of such person.

issuing this Notification is to ensure that the person granted a license to be derivatives broker possesses strong financial position and reliability. It is, therefore, deemed necessary to determine the