through his client's account without evidence of client's orders. The SEC found out from the recorded conversation between {A} and the client, which showed that the client had entrusted {A} to send trading

latter to use her authorized trader ID to access the trading system for the purpose of canceling a client?s trading order as instructed by the client. However, the order had already been executed, so

., for one-year eleven months and fourteen days. The period was set on the grounds of trading securities in the client?s account without permission, taking advantage of client by virtue of duty and

}, the SEC further probed into the case and found that {A} persuaded his client to invest in derivatives contracts by exaggerating return from investment. He had prepared his own documents for giving

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

of conduct. 1) In case of {A}: the SEC obtained from Kim Eng Securities (Thailand) Plc. a report on its investigation in response to a complaint lodged by a client. {A} admitted that during the year

Conduct for approved investor contacts. Vitaya was found to have deceived his client on several occasions by telling the client to transfer money to Vitaya?s own banking account, at the total amount of

trading to the client. She also had the trader's name card made under the company's name and position of marketing officer, misleading the client to believe that such trader was an SEC approved investor

 {A} had solicited a client to invest in derivatives products by guaranteeing returns; the client agreed to the deal and allowed him to make investment decisions on the client's behalf. Later, he was

negligent with regard to supervision of the company?s core work systems.   Regarding the share transfer case, Auracha, then an investment consultant at AEC, was found transfering shares in the client?s