traded TPC shares on a continual basis, causing the share price to be inconsistent with the normal market condition. {D} and {E} aided and abetted the said actions by allowing the use of their trading

trading. This resulted in high impact on RICH shares trading values and volumes while a number of trading orders were matched within the said group.  {B} {C} and {D} aided or abetted the aforesaid actions

trade securities in the client's account without permission in order to achieve better performance.      {A}'s actions are in violation of Clause 20(1) and 20(2) of the Notification of Capital Market

and his client showed that he had used the client's account to trade securities for himself.{A}'s actions were deemed the violation of Clauses 20(1) and (3) of the Notification of Capital Market

obtaining the clients? instructions.  They cannot make securities and derivatives trading decisions on behalf of clients, regardless of the client's permission.  In this regard, the aforesaid {A}'s actions

applicant and group of parent company.  {A}'s actions were considered as failure to comply with the Notification of the SEC Office concerning approval of financial advisor and scope of performance while {X1

/Nor/Khor. 37/2553 re: Prohibitions for Personnel of Business Operators dated September 15, 2010. The actions were in violation of Clause 23(2) and the prohibited characteristics of the personnel in the

caused   TYM share price inconsistent with normal market conditions to mislead the general public about TYM trading values and volumes and lure the general public to trade such shares.Their actions were

were all sold out during low price period.  The said actions were in violation of Section 311 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (SEA) in conjunction with Section 83 of the Penal Code

licensed to operate securities business in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992. Their actions are in violation of Section 90 and liable to the penalties under Section 289, i.e