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

(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

loss. Their actions were in violation of Section 241, subject to sanctions under Section 296 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). On June 18, 2014, Yongyuth and Vorapin agreed to enter

/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