through the use of client accounts; while {D} was found using a client account to trade securities for her own benefits. In particular, their actions had been aided and abetted by {E} , who then was the
outstanding balance in the derivatives account. In this regard, the aforesaid {A}'s actions are in violation of Clause 20(2) of the Notification of Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorLorThor. 3/2555 re
strictly monitor and supervise their investment consultants to follow such requirements, the SEC may consider that they have inefficient compliance systems and may pursue further actions.?The trading volume
clients. In this regard, the aforesaid actions are in violation of Clause 20(3) of the Notification of Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorLorThor. 3/2555 re: Approval for Personnel of Business
trading orders when obtaining orders from clients. In this regard, the aforesaid actions are in violation of Clause 20(3) of the Notification of Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorLorThor. 3/2555 re
into the trading. The actions of Sermkirt, Wichian and Pratheep were in violation of Sections 243(1) in conjunction with 244 and 243(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) in conjunction
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