"The witness, Mr. Avisror: I was a 22-year-old boy, I worked in the Bank de Binary building, and that's just what you wrote.
Adv. Asif: Explain to me what, what does the Bank de Binary building mean?
The witness, Mr. Avisror: It is listed on the building. It was written on the building."
These facts support the existence of a connection between OFM , with which the plaintiff allegedly contracted, and BDB, Global and Shabbat.
Moreover, in practice, the defendants refrained from presenting the details of this company - what is its full name? What is the company number? What is its place of incorporation? And so on - details which, to the extent that they were revealed, it is clear that they were able to enlighten the eyes as to the identity of the company. The defendants ceased to make such a disclosure, even though on the face of it was a company to which Global allegedly provided services, and therefore, it is clear that Global has many documents attesting to its identity - including documents that can be easily recovered - such as invoices (which can be recovered by contacting an accountant or the tax authorities), contracts, financial transfers, contacts, etc.
I am of the opinion that this conduct of the defendants - their changing version and their failure to present evidence relating to the identity of the OFM that they are supposed to possess or at least the defendants can reconstruct - all of these indicate that insofar as it is indeed a company - and it is highly doubtful whether this is indeed the case, since, as stated in the documents signed by the plaintiff there is no mention that it is a company - it is a company connected to Global or Shabbat or BDB (which is also connected to Shabbat).
- Learn from the aforesaid - From the very beginning of the plaintiff's engagement with Global, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Global under the guise of an anonymous entity "OFM", and there is no dispute that at that time the plaintiff was not aware that she was in fact communicating with Global. The very fact that Global is hiding behind another identity, especially when it comes to hiding behind an entity whose identity cannot be traced, is, in my view, part of the fraudulent mask and a basis for fraud.
- I am of the opinion that the continuation of the mask of concealment and fraud revolved around the use of "stage" names for Global employees during the communication between them and the customers. This fact is not in dispute and moreover, the defendants are trying to explain it. Thus, in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his affidavit, Avisror specifies that the conduct of the company's representatives vis-à-vis the customers was done under generic stage names; Because one of the aforementioned stage names was "Stephen Collins"; that he sometimes made use of this name, in the framework of providing service to customers; At the same time, Avisror emphasized that he was not the only one who made use of this stage name, and that sometimes several service representatives dealt with the same customer under the name of this platform. Avisror further explained in his affidavit that the use of "stage names" was intended both for the purpose of protecting the privacy of the company's employees and in order to facilitate their conduct vis-à-vis customers, most of whom were not from Israel, and therefore would find it difficult to pronounce the jumble of foreign names (see similarly, paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Shabbat affidavit).
Insofar as there is indeed an explanation given by the defendants to justify the very use of name names, why is the same name used for a number of employees? Why not just use first names? And finally, why are only foreign names used? I am of the opinion that the answers to these questions also indicate the continuation of the mask of deception. Thus, the use of the same name for several employees shows that Global's desire was to create a special relationship between the customer and the employee working with him, in such a way that the customer would believe that he was constantly working with the same employee and that this would contribute to a relationship of trust between the customer and the employee. Moreover, I am of the opinion that the use of foreign names is part of the representation that this is not an Israeli company, but rather a foreign company - a representation which, according to the plaintiff, which was not denied, is intended to support the representation that this is a corporation operating under regulation and not an Israeli corporation operating under Israeli regulation (which, as Avisror testified on page 96, lines 13-15 - does not apply to non-Israeli customers on the relevant dates). Moreover, the fact that a number of employees used the same name, combined with the fact that they were stage names and not real names, even led to the difficulty of identifying the one human factor that was in contact with the customer. The case before me illustrates the result of this difficulty, since, as will be detailed below, I do not believe that the plaintiff has borne the burden of showing that Avisror was indeed the one who acted exclusively with her as Stephen Collins, and therefore, it is not possible to attribute to Avisror all of Collins' statements, and in particular not the statements in which the misrepresentations are embodied.
- Hence, to the continuation of the representations that were presented to the plaintiff - according to the plaintiff - which is supported by her affidavit and testimony - she was presented with representations according to which this is a safe investment, which constitutes a "pension fund" for her and will generate her monthly income, and that her money is protected - inter alia in view of the bonuses that were injected into her account. Moreover, according to the plaintiff, the trading actions carried out by the plaintiff were based on recommendations given to her by Collins and with a representation that these were recommendations of the company's analysts. The plaintiff further claimed that Collins presented her with a representation that he was an economist by training, that he had been working for the company for seven years, and that he had an interest in the plaintiff's profit, i.e., that there was a congruence between his interests and hers. In addition, the plaintiff claimed that she had been presented with a representation that the company with which she had contracted, was a company operating from Hong Kong and was going to move to work from London - both places where commercial arenas are regulated (this is different from Israel, which, as Avisror testified on page 96, lines 13-15 - did not apply regulation to non-Israeli customers at the relevant times). Moreover, the plaintiff testified that the same Collins made representations to her regarding OFM's engagement in contracts with leading companies, and that he would make investments for her that would yield her a return with these companies. In addition, the plaintiff claimed that Collins had made a representation to her that he would receive permission to include her in these transactions, and that she had to deposit more money in order for her to be included in these transactions.
As stated, the plaintiff supported these claims and the representations that were presented to her first and foremost in the affidavit. However, in the course of her cross-examination, the defendants refrained from questioning the plaintiff regarding these representations and focused on other issues - particularly relating to the question of whether the plaintiff was aware of the risk in her investment, whether she was afraid of her investment before and whether she continued to invest after she lost. Therefore, the plaintiff's version as to the representations that were presented to her was not rejected.