) for falsifying the company?s documents and accounts in violation of Section 312 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA). The SEC?s finding indicated that Somchit proceeded or permitted
behalf of the client. In this regard, Theera and Nongun?s actions were in violation of Clause 20(2) of the Notification of the Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorLorThor. 3/2555 Re: Approval for
trading orders only when obtaining orders from the clients. Even with the client's permission; they cannot make decisions on behalf of the client. In this regard, {A} and {B}'s actions were in violation of
trading orders via the phone with call recorder. Making securities trading decisions on behalf of client and failing to completely record client's securities trading orders were in violation of the Clauses
/Nor/Khor. 37/2553 re: Prohibited Characteristics of Personnel in Capital Market Business dated September 15, 2010. The actions were in violation of Clauses 23(2) and (3) and the prohibited
seller were deemed as failure to perform duties with honesty and to adhere to the professional ethics and standard of conducts for the capital market personnel. The said actions were in violation of Clause
-compliance with standards of conduct of investor contacts in violation of Clause 14(7) of the SEC Office Notification No.SorKhor. 49/2552 Re: Approval for Investor Contacts and Standards of Conduct dated 14
violation of Clause 6(1) of the Notification of the Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorThor/Nor/Khor. 37/2553 Re: Prohibited Characteristics of Capital Market Personnel dated September 14, 2010. Two-year
the Securities and Exchange Act. In addition, He failed to order or act his duty resulting in Solaris Asset Management Co., Ltd. violation of section 117 of the Securities and Exchange Act. Solaris
entrusting the company to manage their private funds with due care and professional standards, consequently liable to be a violation of Section Paragraph 2 and 3 of Section 134, in conjunction with Paragraph 1