Adv. Asif: Tell me.
The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: $360. Okay. Now he hasn't reached double 20 in his cycle. He didn't come, did he? How much can he attract? According to the bonus agreement That you have how much he can withdraw?
Adv. Asif: Let's save the questions, answer the question yourself.
The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: He can withdraw all the money minus the $100 that belongs to the company. And it is said that he has reached a double of 20 in trading, what does he attract?
Adv. Asif: What does it attract?
The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: Also the company's $100.
Adv. Asif: Okay.
The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: Why? Because probably at the same time the 20 duplication will generate enough commissions between thespread He has generated enough commissions for the company in his trading to allow this withdrawal of the bonus as well. In other words, the company will also make a profit in terms of the commissions it received, and the company, on the other hand, will also keep the customer within its system, which is the whole goal."
This testimony of Shabbat indicates that in order for the client to win the bonus, he must trade in a volume that is 20 times the scope of the bonus. The actual impossibility of withdrawing the bonus and as a result the denial of the representation that the bonus is sufficient to protect the clients' money can be learned from the numerical example that was given in the plaintiff's summaries and which was not denied in the defendants' summaries. In this regard, the plaintiff detailed in paragraph 37 of her summaries that the plaintiff deposited a total of $1,167,906 and on the other hand, a bonus in the total amount of $1,501,528 was injected into her account (in parentheses, I will note that on the face of it, the bonus is higher than the amount of the plaintiff's investment, a fact that supports the plaintiff's claims that the representation presented to her is that her money is safe in light of the bonuses). In order for the plaintiff to reach a situation in which the bonus really protects her, she had to complete a trade in the amount of more than ILS 53 million. To put it bluntly, the plaintiff lost all of its money (except for the sum of about ₪87,000 that it withdrew during the trading and a few thousand dollars that it withdrew in the trade summary) - while transactions amounting to ILS 17 million were executed by it - a fact that shows how far-fetched the possibility that the bonus will actually protect the client is far-fetched. Add to this Shabbat's testimony that the trading that the plaintiff carried out on a large scale was what led to the losses in her account (see his testimony on page 169 and also at pages 183-184 of the minutes) - and the result is that the granting of the bonus from this in contrast to the remote possibility of withdrawing it or the remote possibility of actually protecting the clients' money - encourages trading on a considerable scale and in practice has the potential to increase the customers' losses.
- I am also of the opinion that the plaintiff was presented with false representations regarding the identification of interests between her and Collins, as well as the conflict of interest between her and Global (or OFM, since the plaintiff did not know about the existence of Global at all). I will begin with Global's interests, which in my view are also embodied in the interests of its employees and have implications for them.
Before examining the manner of Global's remuneration and in order to understand the terminology related to it, I would like to refer to the explanation of terminology related to this activity and which were written by me in a judgment given inCivil Case (Tel Aviv District) 10738-09-12 Global Trading (Glatt) ap X in a Tax Appeal vs. Avi Peretz [Nevo] (July 3, 2019) (hereinafter: "Global Trading Matter"). I will note that in the matter of Global Trading , we are talking about Forex trading, but the essence is similar and the difference is that Forex trading revolves around currency rates while binary options trading revolves around stock prices. In the same matter, paragraph 3 of the judgment explained the difference between an arena that is "covered" and a commercial arena that is not covered, and the manner in which profits are received in such an arena was also explained.