and volume. In addition, a number of trading orders were also matched within the group to induce the public into the trading of RICH shares. Previously, the Settlement Committee on January 22, 2014
into the case and found that {A} submitted trading orders for EIC securities on the client's behalf, during the period of tender offer launched by such client. In so doing, {A} failed to inform the
submitted the client?s securities trading orders via the internet from the IP address of Krungsri Securities for a certain period of time. Wasana admitted and explained that her client was not keen on
securities. In addition, it was found that a client of {B} asked her to make trading decision on his behalf while {C} submitted the client's securities trading orders via the internet from the IP address of
? 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