orders and payment. The said actions were in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). As they agreed to enter the settlement procedure, the Settlement Committee
said actions were in violation of Section 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992). As they agreed to enter the settlement procedure, the Settlement Committee therefore imposed fines on {A
the aforementioned information learnt from her position of TUCC chief finance officer. Yongyuth and Vorapin?s actions were in violation of Section 241 which is subject to sanctions under Section 296 of
deemed as failure to inform the client of sufficient information which was material and relevant to the client's investment decision, in violation of Clause 20(2) of the Notification of Capital Market
securities trading as well as amount of securities and prices, all of which were acknowledged by the client's authorized person. Making securities trading decisions on behalf of client is in violation of
to other out-of-control wallets without client’ instructions. That actions incurred losses to others and public in violation of Section 85 of Digital Asset Businesses Law. It also violated Section 87
affirmed that he had learned of {A}'s trading on his behalf. In this case, {A} has paid compensation to the client already.Making securities trading decisions on behalf of client is in violation of Clause 20
derivatives trading decisions on behalf of client is in violation of Clause 20(2) of the Notification of Capital Market Supervisory Board No. TorLorThor. 3/2555 re: Approval for Personnel of Business Operators
benefit from realization of investment in associated company by equity method. {A}'s action was deemed as using inside information in such a way as to take advantage of other persons in violation of
orders via mobile phone.Making securities trading decisions on behalf of the client and failure to record the client's securities trading orders are, respectively, in violation of Clause 20(2) and 20(3) of