? futures trading orders through an account linked to him at another broker for his personal gain. This caused financial damages to his clients. His actions were in violation of Sections 145(3) and (4) of
derivatives trading decisions on the client's behalf. Upon her client's inquiry, she then informed the client of the transactions which the orders had already been entered or executed. {A} had obtained such
person in charge of mutual funds? investment and might learn of the funds? investment information as well as those having duty to send trading orders. The business operator must seek the SEC approval for
. Eventually, she admitted that some purchasing transactions were made without the client's orders to cut loss in the client's account. This could be considered as misconduct for obtaining authorization to make
SALEE shares from April 2 to October 9, 2007. The trading was in the manner that inflated and stabilized the share price as well as matched orders among those accounts. The transactions resulted in
inflated the share price and matched the trading orders within the group in concealment. This caused PERM shares trading to be inconsistent with the normal market condition to mislead and lure the public
orders and payment. The said actions were in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). As they agreed to enter the settlement procedure, the Settlement Committee
{X1} Company's plan to pay interim dividend at 0.94 baht per share, higher than the dividend paid during the past five years. In the scheme, {C} assisted {B} in making purchase orders and payment. The