decisions on the client's behalf for a period of time. {A} admitted that the client allowed her to make trading decision to adjust the transferred securities from another securities company and she kept

on another overseas exchange simultaneously or in proximate period, on the condition that equity trading volume on such oversea exchange is higher than that on the SET. In addition, the overseas

initial public offering in Thailand and other countries simultaneously or in proximate period. In case of secondary listing, however, if foreign companies are subject to home regulators and home exchanges

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

Capital Nomura Securities PLC., a number of securities trading orders from an account of {A}'s client had no supporting evidence for a period of time. {A} admitted to Capital Nomura Securities PLC., that he

information system prior to the closing of the tender offer period. 

had to settle the purchase order before regular settlement period in order to avoid force selling. This action was considered that Wiroj failed to inform sufficient information by concealing important

purchase order before regular settlement period in order to avoid force selling. This action was considered that {A} failed to inform sufficient information by concealing important information that might

consultants for a period of two months and one month, respectively, effective from June 13, 2013.

investment decision making. The program approval suits the issuer making several offers for sale of debt securities in the proximate period and allows the issuer to make such offer when having financial need