.{A} case was referred from the Stock Exchange of Thailand for the SEC's further investigation while cases of {B} and {C} were detected by the SEC's routine inspection. The SEC found from the probe that

trading orders, effective from January 19, 2013.The SEC found from its routine inspection that {A} had failed to record her investment advice and a client's securities trading orders for 14 days as

suspending {A}, an employee of Kiatnakin Securities Co., Ltd. and {B}, an employee of Phara Securities Plc. and also revealing {C}'s inappropriate behavior.  The SEC found from its routine inspection that {A

from its routine inspection in Asia Plus Securities Plc., that {B} had been authorized by his client to make securities trading decisions on the client's behalf. The communication records showed that {B

(Thailand) Plc. Earlier, the SEC found in a routine inspection of Maybank Kim Eng Securities (Thailand) Plc., that {A} had been authorized by his clients to make securities trading decisions on the clients

{G}. The SEC found from the routine inspection that {A} frequently failed to record her clients' derivatives trading orders while {B}, {C}, {D}, and {E} frequently failed to record their clients

December 27, 2012. It also revealed inappropriate action of a former capital market investment consultant of a securities company for trading derivatives on behalf of a client.The SEC found from its routine

Securities Plc., for trading securities on behalf of clients.From a routine inspection of UOB Kay Hian Securities (Thailand) Plc, the SEC probed into {A}'s case and found certain communication record

securities investment consultant, namely {E}, were suspended, effective from September 11, 2014.The SEC's routine inspection of RHB OSK Securities (Thailand) Plc., found that {B}, {C}, {D} and {E} had prepared

routine inspection of Kasikorn Securities Plc, the SEC found that {A} did not record a number of derivatives trading orders from a client. {A} admitted that she received the client's derivatives trading