He also testified on page 161, lines 5-14:
"Adv. Asif: So I,
The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: So I'll explain to you before you ask me about the file, I'll just explain a little bit to you. I'll explain to you that within our company they operated on a product called live chat. Live chat is actually a monitored product that at any given moment you can check not only its history, but also in real time what the representatives write in front of those customers and if there was anythingAI who in this monitored chat would have already monitored it and would have bounced it out to the department complicate. Department compliance If she didn't live in Israel, she would have located it, she would have known that customers had been told all kinds of things and would handle it accordingly. What are you bringing me? Word file?
Finally, he testified on page 162 that insofar as Avisror confirmed that he communicated with customers on Skype, he did so in contravention of his instructions.
However, in the face of Shabbat's testimony that no communication was made between Global employees and its customers via Skype, Avisror did not rule out such communication. Moreover, a perusal of Ben/1, the email confirming the plaintiff's registration by Simon Pearl, reveals that at the bottom of the message, this employee also writes his Skype ID - i.e., the manner in which he can be contacted via Skype.
- In light of all of the aforesaid and detailed, I am of the opinion that - deliberately and in order to distance himself from the plaintiff and at the relevant times even from Global - Shabbat concealed information that he allegedly had in his possession and did not tell the truth on significant issues relating to OFM's identity, the connection between it and Global, the fact that he also served as Global manager on the relevant dates of the lawsuit (i.e., after 2013) and the manner in which Global's employees operated. As I have already noted and noted, I am of the opinion that the unreliability of Shabbat constitutes an additional layer in the evidentiary foundation that was placed before me, which is sufficient to support the plaintiff's claims.
- Taking a personal risk by the plaintiff and claims of "love of risk" - as negating her claims of fraud;
In contrast to the plaintiff's claims that she was deceived and misrepresented, the defendants claim that the plaintiff was not deceived - both because she was aware of the existence of a risk involved in the activity and even took upon herself consciously when she made the investments, and since she continued to make investments even after it became clear to her that the representations were false representations and that she had lost substantial sums. In light of this, the defendants claim that the plaintiff's conduct indicates that she was not deceived or misled in the first place, and in any case there is no connection between the misrepresentations and the plaintiff's damages, since she is "risk-averse" and made her investments with full awareness. I will relate here as well to the claims relating to the plaintiff's actual conduct as having implications for the defendants' liability, I will also address here - in the context of the question of whether the plaintiff was in fact deceived and misled - i.e., with regard to the question of whether her conduct negates liability in the first place and later - when I will address the question of whether her conduct constitutes contributory fault that can reduce the plaintiffs' liability and share it with the plaintiff.