Moreover, I am of the opinion that support - in the form of a partial admission of the plaintiff's claims - can be found in Avisror's affidavit. There, in paragraph 8, Avisror declares that: "My job was to provide service to clients who contacted those various companies (other than Global) in order to trade in binary options. As part of this service, I have provided clients with possible investment paths ("positions") through which they can trade. Customers were explained about the trading platform and the specific features it allows and how it works so that they can use it. After all, for this purpose, customers turned to those companies in the first place. Also, sometimes I even mentioned to the clients that there are many other clients who were satisfied and even made money as a result of the trading activities they carried out (which was true)." - From this testimony, it appears that the company's employees did indeed give customers recommendations regarding trading routes, and it also appears that Global's employees made a representation regarding the profits of many customers.
At the same time, Avisror claimed that the clients themselves were the ones who carried out the trading activities, but this argument does not matter to my approach, since I find it acceptable to accept the plaintiff's version that her investments - even to the extent that they were technically executed by her - were based on recommendations given to her by Collins and the company's so-called analysts.
- To this, it should be added that part of the plaintiff's argument, according to which she was presented with a representation, and accordingly her money was protected, revolved around a representation according to which a bonus would be deposited into her account. I will note that the deposit of a "bonus" into the plaintiff's account is not in dispute (and the deposit of bonuses is reflected in the CRM presented by the defendants). However, according to the plaintiff's claim - which I find to accept - she was presented with a representation according to which the bonus protected her expense, but in practice it was not actually in this representation. This determination is also based on the testimony of the plaintiff, but also on the explanation given by Shabbat himself as to the manner in which the bonus can be actually withdrawn. Thus, from line 19 on page 164 to line 10 on page 165, Shabbat explained:
"The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: Ok, bonus structure It works in a very simple way. Let's say you deposited $100 into the system. It was said and I gave you another $100 into the system. I gave you $100 from my side. The company is already going into a loss. Why is it going to lose? Because you're trading now with the company's $100 and your $100. Why are we giving it away? Why is it given at all? To retain you as a customer within the system so you don't go to other platforms. Okay. The bigger the bonus, the more likely you will want to stay and trade our money. I think we ate it, oh, no. Now let's say and the customer now took the customer's $100 plus another $100 from the company and made $160 out of it. Sorry, $160 profit. How much do we have in the account?