execution program. She also transferred her own money into the client’s trading account as a collateral for trading loss. Meanwhile, the client did not contradict or object to the record of confirmed

cash or transferred the money to the juristic person claimed to be an agent from Hong Kong SAR or through currency exchange company in Thailand.According to the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003), any

1.58 million baht, and lying that the transferred money would be paid for securities subscriptions on and off the Stock Exchange. In fact, there was no evidence of such subscriptions, nor did the

the contract is discharged by law or by creditors ? and may derecognize financial assets when it has transferred substantially all risks and rewards of ownership of the asset. In this case, there is a

that NUSA paid to Miss Varinborn, the seller, was not transferred into the seller’s account, while the directors and executives of NUSA, i.e., Mrs. Siriya, Mr. Visanu and Mr. Nontawat as well as their

that NUSA paid to Miss Varinborn, the seller, was not transferred into the seller’s account, while the directors and executives of NUSA, i.e., Mrs. Siriya, Mr. Visanu and Mr. Nontawat as well as their

that NUSA paid to Miss Varinborn, the seller, was not transferred into the seller’s account, while the directors and executives of NUSA, i.e., Mrs. Siriya, Mr. Visanu and Mr. Nontawat as well as their

that NUSA paid to Miss Varinborn, the seller, was not transferred into the seller’s account, while the directors and executives of NUSA, i.e., Mrs. Siriya, Mr. Visanu and Mr. Nontawat as well as their

that NUSA paid to Miss Varinborn, the seller, was not transferred into the seller’s account, while the directors and executives of NUSA, i.e., Mrs. Siriya, Mr. Visanu and Mr. Nontawat as well as their

that NUSA paid to Miss Varinborn, the seller, was not transferred into the seller’s account, while the directors and executives of NUSA, i.e., Mrs. Siriya, Mr. Visanu and Mr. Nontawat as well as their