into the case and found conversation in the LINE Application that {A} traded securities for herself through the client?s securities trading account. During a certain period of time, she made a number of
investment advice without any reference from analysis report or certification of Maybank Kim Eng Securities (Thailand) Plc. Certain statements contained in the said could make the client believe that he will
care of such client's securities trading account for a certain period of time. {A} admitted that the client allowed him to make securities trading decisions and he has already compensated the client for
Section 34 of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) which contain certain provisions relating to the restriction of rights and liberties of persons which Section 29 in conjunction with Section 33, Section 34
clients. In addition, a certain share transfer from a client account was found to be suspicious and defective in many aspects. For example, (a) the investment consultant who affixed the signature in the
. 2551 (2008) , which contain certain provisions relating to the restriction of rights and liberties of persons, which Section 29 in conjunction with Section 33, Section 34, Section 36, Section 41, Section
. 2551 (2008), which contain certain provisions relating to the restriction of rights and liberties of persons, which Section 29 in conjunction with Section 33, Section 34, Section 36, Section 41, Section
. 2551 (2008), which contain certain provisions relating to the restriction of rights and liberties of persons, which Section 29 in conjunction with Section 33, Section 34, Section 36, Section 41, Section
certain provisions in relation to the restriction of rights and liberties of persons which Section 29 in conjunction with Section 33, Section 34, Section 36, Section 41, Section 43, and Section 45 of the
submitted the client?s securities trading orders via the internet from the IP address of Krungsri Securities for a certain period of time. Wasana admitted and explained that her client was not keen on