With regard to the claim that the plaintiff tried to widen the façade, it was argued that this was a false claim. Moreover, with regard to the attempt to cast doubt on the reliability of Skype, it was argued that it should be rejected because the Skype correspondence was supported by the plaintiff's affidavit, since the defendants themselves relied on it and could have checked it using the copy in their possession. Regardingthe evidentiary aspect, it was argued that the prosecution is not based on a single testimony of the plaintiff, but rather on many pieces of evidence, including the testimonies of defendants and their confessions.
In light of all of the above, it was argued that the claim should be accepted.
Discussion and Decision;
- On the evidentiary dates that took place before - 11/7/24 - the plaintiff testified and on 18/7/24 - Shabbat and Avisror testified on behalf of the defendant. After the hearing of the testimonies was completed, the parties submitted their summaries and after reviewing all of these and all the evidence submitted in the proceeding, while examining the issues of their admissibility and weight, this judgment was given.
- At the center of the hearing in the proceeding is before the plaintiff's claims that she was deceived by the defendants or any of them. A discussion of the issue of the plaintiff's fraud brings under its wings a number of issues - first, questions regarding the identification of those involved in the fraud, including whether Avisror is indeed Stephen Collins, who acted with the plaintiff, according to her, and whether Global constitutes a marketing company only, and in fact the plaintiff contracted with another company through which the trade was carried out. In addition, it is necessary to examine - as a basis for the issue of the existence of fraud - what misrepresentations were presented to the plaintiff, if any, by whom and whether there is a causal connection between these representations and the plaintiff's damage. Finally, it is necessary to examine whether there is room to hold Shabbat liable for the plaintiff's damages, whether by means of the tool of lifting the veil or by means of the tool that revolves around the imposition of personal liability. The answers to these issues are based on the factual basis that was proven in the proceeding. In other words, what facts were proven in the proceeding, and on the basis of this - what admissible evidence was presented in the proceeding as a basis for proving the facts, their reliability and weight.
- As I have already detailed above, in addition to her testimony, the plaintiff submitted - in support of her claims - Skype correspondence between her and Stephen Collins, e-mails, printouts indicating withdrawals from her account, and documents related to legal proceedings abroad and in Israel. The defendants on the other hand testified and were cross-examined. As it emerges from the parties' summaries - first and foremost, the defendants deny the admissibility of the Skype message printout submitted by the plaintiff. Since this printout constituted a significant volume of evidence in the proceeding, I find it first and foremost necessary to address its admissibility.
Admissibility of Skype correspondence -
- In support of her claims regarding the content of the representations presented to her by Stephen Collins, the plaintiff submitted a footnote allegedly documenting the Skype conversations that took place between her and Stephen Collins. The defendants, as aforesaid, denied the admissibility of this output, given that according to their approach, the output was not submitted lawfully, and it was argued that the format in which it was submitted - as a "word" document - was such that it did not allow tracing the authenticity of the correspondence, since it was exposed to irreconcilable changes. After examining these arguments of the defendants, I found that the contractor and accordingly determined that the Skype correspondence in the format in which it was submitted as admissible evidence should not be accepted. In this determination - as I will detail below - I did not lose sight of the ruling regarding the transfer of parallels to the weight in the laws of evidence, as well as the rule regarding the erosion of the applicability of the best evidentiary rule - which was established in the context of the admissibility of a recording. At the same time, I am of the opinion that given that Skype correspondence constitutes a digital output, which may be subject to manipulation and changes, inter alia, given that, unlike a recording, its content itself does not lead to direct identification of the correspondent - I am of the opinion that there should be morevocal rules as a condition for its submission, including that the source of the correspondence must be submitted and at least a copy (as opposed to a copy of it). It is clear that this output can be submitted with consent, especially where both parties have access to the Skype correspondence and therefore, each of them can compare the submitted copy with the correspondence in his hand. The problem is that in the case before the defendants they objected to the submission and moreover, they claim that they do not have Skype correspondence between them and the plaintiff (whether due to the loss of material over the years or in light of an argument - made by Shabbat - according to which Global employees did not use this format for conversations at all). Therefore, neither party has the opportunity to examine the authenticity of the content in the file as presented.
- And in more detail -
Skype correspondence is digital evidence or information: "Digital information consists of binary code-that is, a series of zeros and unity-that is incomprehensible to most people... Therefore, in order to read the digital information, we use "intermediaries" in the blood of computers and their software. These "translate" the digital information into a user-understandable format. This translation is referred to in Israeli law as "Pellet." (Yaniv Vaki, Laws of Evidence (Vol. 2, 2020), 1105 (hereinafter: "Vaki")).