In my understanding, the fact that I was compensated for my work, inter alia, on the basis of trading activities carried out by my clients does not create any conflict of interest. The opposite is true. My personal interest was in line with the interest of my clients. As mentioned, the entire purpose of customer contact is to carry out binary options trading. Executing binary options trading operations fulfills the purpose of their engagement. Moreover, the more a client earns, the more it will encourage them to continue investing and executing additional trades and remain a client. Accordingly, the company was interested in satisfied customers and, as a result, rewarded its employees... "
It emerges from the aforesaid that, as stated, Avisror did not specify precisely the manner in which he was compensated by the company, and in particular, did not specify a different calculation mechanism than the one claimed by the plaintiff (and which Global itself admitted in another proceeding that it was taken with respect to another of its employees). Moreover, Avisror's testimony supports the plaintiff's claim that Global employees were compensated on the basis of achievements and that - in accordance with the fact that the company did not earn or lose where the customer made or lost - the remuneration of its employees was related to the scope of the customers' transactions. To this it should be added that in his testimony before me (see page 93 of the minutes) Avisror even confirmed that he would have preferred a client to deposit more funds in OFM - i.e., he supported the fact that it was in his interest to increase the scope of the clients' investments.
Additional support for the fact that Global was in the interest of the customers not to withdraw funds and that its employees even acted in order to fulfill the aforesaid can be found in Shabbat's testimony on page 189, lines 7-9:
"Adv. Asif: I get it. And you say in the years that you've known them inETBO So didn't it happen that many customers withdrew from the fund?