In light of all this, the defendants claim that even to the extent that the plaintiff was presented with representations - which were denied - in light of the plaintiff's awareness of the risks involved in trading in binary options, and yes, given that the plaintiff continued to trade even after the false representations became apparent to her, it is not only that the plaintiff was not deceived at all - but was aware of the facts in their entirety, or alternatively, that the facts did not interest the plaintiff and therefore There is and was not and was not any causal connection between the alleged fraud and its investment.
- After considering these arguments of the defendants, I do not find them acceptable.
Thus, first of all, with regard to warnings regarding the risk and the plaintiff's awareness of this risk - even if I accept the argument that the warning is in fact sufficient to provide cover for the defendants' liability for the realization of the risk involved in the investment - i.e., the loss of funds as a result of the investment, it is clear that the warning of the general risk inherent in investing in binary options does not allow the defendants or any of them to make false representations or deceive the plaintiff as claimed by the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff does not complain about the realization of the risk in the investment itself (a claim that warnings regarding the risk may have removed liability from the defendants), but rather that she claims that she was presented with false representations regarding the company throughthe investment (and the regulation to which it is subject); to people who handle its money or recommend it to take actions based on analytical analysis (including having extensive experience); regarding the company's engagement with leading companies in contracts in which the plaintiff is given the opportunity to invest in them in a manner that is likely to yield it a substantial return; and regarding the identity of interests between Global and its employees and the plaintiff. All of these are representations that it is clear that the fact that the plaintiff was aware of the risks, or that she was indeed warned of the risks associated with the investment itself, does not fall within the scope of the general risk if the plaintiff had been aware, or that the warning refers to it or protects the defendants from it. Moreover, as will be detailed below, the representations that were presented are capable of appeasing the risk involved in the investment, since the plaintiff - although she was aware of the risk and that knowledge and training were needed in order to make the investment - believed that she was receiving the appropriate and professional tools and advice in order to enable her to deal with the said risk, and that this was the role of Collins and the company's analysts. With regard to this, I find it necessary to refer again to the plaintiff's statement - N/7 - which substantiates the plaintiff's claim that although she was aware of the risk involved in the investment, she was of the opinion that her money was protected, that there are analysts on the basis of whose recommendations the investments are made (who, according to her, repeatedly give bad advice) and that there are various agreements with leading companies that will bring her profits.