Capital Nomura Securities PLC., a number of securities trading orders from an account of {A}'s client had no supporting evidence for a period of time. {A} admitted to Capital Nomura Securities PLC., that he

and then inform the client afterward. {A} admitted that her client had authorized her to help adjust the client's investment portfolio to cut losses in the account. She also confirmed the trading with

Derivatives Act B.E.2546. The Bangkok South Criminal Court fined the accused of Baht 40,000. As the accused confessed, the fine was reduced by half to a fine of Baht 20,000. DV Act S.16 Criminal Complaint

orders were sent through over the internet and under her securities trader ID while the client acknowledged and did not reject the transactions. {A} admitted that she was the one submitting all trading

40,000. As the accused confessed, the penalty was reduced by half to a 6 months imprisonment and a fine of Baht 20,000. Since the accused had never been sentenced to imprisonment, the jail term was

? behalf. With the said authorization, he traded with high trading volume for a period of time. {A} admitted to Maybank Kim Eng Securities that he used clients' User IDs and passwords to send trading orders

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

evidenced by large amount of related transactions. She then admitted that she took the client's trading orders via mobile phone.The aforesaid actions are in violation of Clause 20(3) of the Notification of

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

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