report from Phatra Securities Plc. that {A} failed to record many securities trading orders of his clients. {A} admitted that he took such trading orders via mobile phone.Failure to record client's

admitted that he had been authorized by his clients to enter securities trading orders on the clients' behalf and then inform such client via mobile phone after the trades were executed.  {A} also admitted

client had ordered to sell 50,000 shares at 19 baht per share on February 25, 2014 but {A} instead submitted the selling orders for 49,000 shares at 17.50 baht per share. {A} admitted doing such action

entrusted to make derivatives trading decisions for the client from January to June 14, 2011. {B}, however, did so on June 15, 2011 without the client's authorization and she admitted to such unauthorized

derivatives on behalf of a client for over 3 years and he admitted to the misconduct.For {E}, the case was lodged by client of Globlex Securities Co., Ltd. indicating that {E} had made unauthorized derivatives

. The client, however, did not reject the transactions. Furthermore, most of internet trading orders were submitted via IP Address of KTB Securities.Panadda, in addition, admitted that she was responsible

orders through his account and requested {A} to inform him afterward. {A} admitted that he had made the aforesaid agreement with the client and daily traded securities through client's account, at

a trading order from the client's securities trading account without her client's order. {A} admitted doing such action, reasoning that she was unable to contact the client at the time the share

accounts. Those orders were submitted without sources and {ก} admitted that he took trading orders via mobile phone. In addition, he received the trading orders from one client for another client's

) Plc., the SEC probed into the case and found that {B} and {A} had been authorized by their client to make securities trading decisions on the client? s behalf. {B} admitted that she has been authorized