(1992) (SEA); while Usavadee and Perayuth?s actions, as aider and abettor, were in violation of Section 241 of the SEA in conjunction with Section 86 of the Penal Code.As the three persons agreed to enter

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

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

of the Penal Code. The Settlement Committee, therefore, imposed fines on Bordin and Noparat at the amounts of 5,870,805 baht and 500,000 baht, respectively. Worathan?s actions were liable to violation

website, and soliciting the public to invest in the shares of the companies, Benson Dupont Capital Management and Morgan Pacific via the telephone. These actions caused investors to suffer damages of

illustrating making trading decision before client acknowledgement. The client then acknowledged the transactions without any objection and made payment completely.  {A}'s actions were deemed using client

client's child, as well as sometimes taking orders via mobile phone.{A}'s actions were deemed as obtaining authorization from client to make securities trading decisions on behalf of client; taking

the clients.  They cannot make securities trading decisions on behalf of clients, regardless of the client's permission.  In this regard, the aforesaid {A}'s actions are in violation of Clause 20(2) of