As stated above, it is precisely due to the innovation of technology that the concern that digital evidence is easier to forge than "classical" evidence, and therefore there is a need to determine its reliability precisely. Strict insistence on the reliability of the evidence requires - when it is a digital document - the submission of the digital source that can attest to its reliability. Indeed, it seems that if a dispute arises between the parties regarding the reliability of evidence that has a digital source, then the digital evidence itself will be submitted to the court."
- I am of the opinion that from all of the above, the following rules can be extracted as a condition for the admissibility of an output as evidence in the proceeding - first, that an original or a copy of the output (as opposed to a copy) will be submitted - that is, that the good evidence rule will be adhered to, in a way that will allow access to the frame data and it will be possible to examine whether manipulations or changes have been made to the file and to learn about its authenticity; Second, that evidence will be submitted regarding the manner in which the copy of the file was downloaded and that the manner in which the output was produced is sufficient to attest to its reliability. In this case, the copy will be submitted together with an expert certificate indicating the date of creation of the submitted copy, that it has not been tampered with and that it corresponds to the content in real time and the actions taken to ensure that all of these have been documented.
- In the case before me, there is no dispute that the Skype correspondence was submitted in WORD format - that is, the source of the correspondence was not submitted, the copy of the correspondence was not submitted, and it can be said that no copy was submitted. However, a document was submitted that purports to describe a "copy-paste" of the correspondence, in which it is clear that changes can be made, which cannot be traced. Moreover, no opinion was submitted indicating how the correspondence was copied from the original Skype correspondence. In these circumstances, I do not believe that the Skype correspondence is admissible as evidence in the proceeding here.
the factual basis that was proven by the plaintiff;
- As detailed above in detail, I determined that the Skype correspondence between the plaintiff and Stephen Collins should not be admitted as evidence. Does this lead to the rejection of the plaintiff's claim? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to examine what factual basis was proven by the plaintiff even without the Skype correspondence. As will be detailed below, I am of the opinion that this factual basis is sufficient to establish causes of action against Global and yes, against Shabbat, but it is not sufficient to establish the causes of action against Avisror.
Since my decision has been brought, I will refer below to explain it at length.
- The plaintiff's main arguments revolve around the misrepresentations presented to her by the defendants. As will be detailed below, these representations are supported by the testimony of the plaintiff - which I found to be reliable, as well as by a series of additional evidence, including in the correspondence of the e-mail messages - the admissibility of which the defendants did not deny; in the testimonies of Avisror and Shabbat themselves; As for Shabbat - also the unreliability of his version on various issues, which can have implications for the overall reliability that can be attributed to his version as a whole.
- Thus, first of all, according to the plaintiff's testimony, following an advertisement she saw on the Internet, she contacted OFM. I am of the opinion that the beginning of the fraudulent scheme that was taken against the plaintiff revolved around the identity of OFM and the connection between it and Global. As for this, a review of the documents signed by the plaintiff when she contacted OFM shows that in the framework of these documents, there is no mention of the legal entity that OFM constituts, and in particular, there is no mention in any of the documents that it is a limited liability company. However, the name "OFM" appears in the documents as a trade name as "branding" and nothing more. As for these documents that were presented by the plaintiff - the defendants did not deny their admissibility and submission. Moreover, in his affidavit, Shabbat explicitly referred to these documents and testified that every client who wished to trade binary options through one of the companies to which Global Services provided him, began his engagement by digitally signing various documents: Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy, and DOD (Declaration of Deposit) - which was signed before each deposit transaction made by the client. It was also clarified in Shabbat's affidavit that a client was not referred to a representative of Global and could not have started any trading activity before signing such a document. Thus, these documents, including their contents, were not denied by the defendants - on the contrary, they supported their existence and content.
There is no dispute that after the plaintiff left her details, she was contacted by a representative of the OFM represented by Simon Pearl. From an electronic notice that was submitted and marked as /1 (i.e., submitted by the defendant herself) it appears that the employee presented himself as an employee of OFM. Moreover, this e-mail message was sent from an address: symonf@option.fm - i.e. an address with an OFM-related extension.