misappropriation of and interference with client assets. In addition, handling securities conversion for clients was beyond the scope of responsibilities assigned by her employer securities company. Sutthasinee?s
securities of his client without authorization. His misconduct caused his client more than one million baht in damage. The interference with the client?s assets contravened the Standards of Conduct under
securities in the client?s account without authorization. His actions, authorized or arbitrary, were deemed interference with client assets, non-compliance with professional standards of conduct. In the case
the investor contact. The interference with the client?s assets and the offering of false information to the client with the intention to deceive are dishonest doings and contravene the standards
investor contacts, securities companies and investors themselves of the negative effects of asset interference and strongly advising investor contacts against committing such misconduct; otherwise, the SEC
unauthorized trading transactions in his account, to which Pojpraphan admitted to have made. His actions were deemed interference with client assets in violation of Clause 11(2) of the above Notification. The
another person?s bank account. Wittaya?s actions were deemed interference with client assets and performing duties beyond the scope of his responsibilities. Both sanctions took effect on August 7, 2008.
Bangkok, Aug 15, 2011 - The SEC suspends four investor contacts, namely, (1) {A} of Asia Plus Plc. for one month, from August 10, 2011 due to his interference with client's assets and reprimands
? accounts that he borrowed the money from, for other?s or his own benefits. The SEC reviewed and found that Chalerm?s actions were deemed fraudulent, deceitful, interference with clients? assets with the
Bangkok, November 24, 2009 ? The SEC revoked approval of one investor contact for 10 years on account of dishonest acts, defrauding and interference with a client?s assets, and suspended another for