Moreover, I do not believe that the fact that the plaintiff's continued activity indicates that she was not cheated in the first place. This is primarily because the defendants did not prove at all that the plaintiff knew about all the fraudulent representations and nevertheless continued to trade in OFM. In this context, the defendants did not bring evidence indicating that the plaintiff knew in real time, i.e., at the time the losses were incurred - that it was an Israeli company, consisting of Israeli employees with no financial education and little experience, that there was no engagement of OFM with leading companies in agreements that might bring it profits, that the bonus funds deposited into its account did not create protection for its money at all, and as to the conflict of interest between the company and it and between the company's employees and it. Moreover, it is not at all clear and it has not been proven that while the plaintiff continued to trade, she knew that all or at least most of her money had been lost - and the evidence is that she turns to her and asks for the money to be returned to her as promised and asks Collins for help - in the confidence that it will help her and that she can be assisted (see N/7). However, all the defendants showed was that the plaintiff was aware that she had lost money, and that the advice given to her was not good - nothing more. This information does not, in my view, negate the plaintiff's claims that she was deceived in the first place.
Moreover, I am of the opinion that the attempt to examine the plaintiff's conduct with the ordinary logic of the bystander is inappropriate and I do not believe that it is possible to negate the "logic" of a person who has lost a lot of money to continue to invest considerable sums of money in the hope of recouping his losses (and the evidence - the conduct of gamblers who, although they lose, continue to gamble in the hope of a future big win). With regard to this, and as a prelude to the discussion that I will hold below regarding the question of whether the plaintiff's conduct constitutes contributory fault that can detract from the amount of damage that will be inflicted on the defendants, I find it necessary to emphasize the distinction between understanding the plaintiff's conduct and accepting it. As to the understanding, I find it necessary to understand the plaintiff's conduct and to determine that it does not detract from the trust that I place in her testimony - that is, from the trust that the plaintiff acted because she was deceived to believe that various representations are correct. In this context, I find it acceptable to accept the plaintiff's version that she continued to trade, even though she understood at a certain point that she had been deceived, at least with regard to some of the information that was provided to her, in the belief that the next moves that would be made would return her money. This confidence in the plaintiff's version negates the argument that the continuation of the activity indicates that the plaintiff was indifferent to the misrepresentations and therefore would have invested even to the extent that she knew the state of affairs - since she "likes risk". The situation is different with regard to the receipt of the matter - I am of the opinion, and it will be clarified below, that even though I understand or trust that I am acquiring the plaintiff's claim that she continued to trade in the belief that the result will change - I cannot accept her conduct. As for this, I am of the opinion that the red lights that were or should have been lit in the plaintiff's mind when it became clear that the representations were misrepresentations and that huge losses were her lot - should have led the plaintiff to a more cautious conduct, in a manner that would have prevented her from continuing or reducing her losses.