In these circumstances, I do not believe that the plaintiff's conduct is sufficient to nullify the false or fraudulent representations on the part of the defendants.
- identifying Avisror as Collins;
Above are all the representations that were presented to the plaintiff by Global and by KolYens. Before I turn to the determination of whether these representations are sufficient to establish causes of action for the plaintiff, I am required to decide the issue of the identification of Avisror as the same Collins who was in contact with the plaintiff. As to this issue, Avisror confirms that he was indeed in contact with the plaintiff and introduced himself as Stephen Collins, but he further argues that it was not Collins who presented the plaintiff with the representations that constitute the basis of her claim. I find this argument of Avisror acceptable.
This is first and foremost because the link made by the plaintiff between "Collins" and Avisror is based for the most part on the Skype correspondence and on points of similarity between the details of information that appear in it and Avisror. The problem is that since I determined that the Skype correspondence was inadmissible as evidence, the plaintiff's identification construction fell in any case. To be precise, the plaintiff does indeed claim - in support of her claim that Avisror is the only Kol Yins who acted with her - that the CRM file contains the same employee ID number for the purpose of providing commissions. In light of this, the plaintiff claims that only one employee acted with her and that Shavisror admitted that he used the name of Stephen Collins against the plaintiff - this is nothing but that it is Avisror. After examining this claim, I did not find that this single evidence - which in my view is not even unequivocal - is capable of lifting the burden of proving Avisror's involvement in the plaintiff's deception. a burden that, according to case law, the degree of proof required to prove it is increased and proof according to the balance of probabilities is not sufficient (see Civil Appeal 292/64 Moshe Cohen v. Yirmiyahu Eshed, IsrSC 19 414 (1965); Civil Appeal 475/81 Zikri v. Clal Insurance Company, IsrSC 40(1) 589, 598-599 (1986); Civil Appeal 400/86 Estate of the late Ben Zion Krieger v. Dr. Sabina Tana Krieger, IsrSC 42(4) 500 (1989); Civil Appeal 3725/08 Hazan v. Hazan, at para. 31 [Nevo] (February 3, 2011)). In light of this, I do not believe that the plaintiff has met the burden of proving that Avisror is Collins who presented the false representations to her.
- As stated, I found that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proving at the required level that Avisror was Collins. At the same time, it should be emphasized that this determination does not negate the imposition of liability on Global or Shabbat. This is because it was clear from the evidence that the employees who introduced themselves as "Stephen Collins" worked for Global. Thus, first and foremost, Global did not claim that "Stephen Collins" did not work for it, but rather that its claim is that the plaintiff contracted with another company to which Global - through its employees - provided marketing and support services - i.e., Global did not claim that its employees were not in continuous contact with the plaintiff. To this, it should be added that there is no dispute that Avisror was employed by Global, and in this framework he admitted that he introduced himself to the plaintiff as "Stephen Collins". Moreover, Avisror further admitted that other employees - who worked alongside him at Global - also introduced themselves as "Stephen Collins" and based on this he claimed that he was not the only "Collins" who worked with the plaintiff and that there were others who did so. Moreover, in response to the plaintiff's question as to how, insofar as it was not a single employee, all the employees who presented themselves to it as "Collins" knew the information provided by it - the defendants claimed that Global made use of the notes system - a system that was operated by the company and on the basis of which all employees were updated with information relevant to customers. From this argument of the defendants, it appears that all of the employees who introduced themselves as Collins to the plaintiff were employees of Global. In light of all this, alongside my determination that it has not been proven that Avisror is the only "Stephen Collins" who worked with the plaintiff, I find it necessary to further determine and emphasize that it has been proven that all the employees who worked with the plaintiff and presented themselves as "Stephen Collins" were employees of Global.
- Interim Summary - The representations made by Global and its employees to the plaintiff;
As a concentration required for the continuation - both for the purpose of deciding the issue of whether Global and its employees wronged the plaintiff and as to the question of whether Shabbat should be held liable, whether due to lifting the veil or as a personal liability, I find it necessary to concentrate the false representations that were proven in the proceeding before they were presented to the plaintiff. As for this, as I have determined, the beginning of the fraudulent campaign that was used against the plaintiff revolved around the identity of OFM and the connection between it and Global. In this context, I determined that in the documents presented to the plaintiff there was no mention of a legal entity in connection with OFM and that after the plaintiff contacted OFM , the plaintiff's contact was with Global's employees, including mainly Stephen Collins. I further determined that throughout all stages of the plaintiff's investment - from the date on which it began its first engagement until the end of its investment - the plaintiff was presented with a representation that it was in contact with a single legal entity that is under the brand OFM. All this while the defendants do not deny that all the employees who actually worked with the plaintiff (including those who presented themselves as "Collins" and yes, the employee who acted with the plaintiff in order to withdraw her money) are employees of Global. As for "OFM", I determined that it is apparently Global itself, but that - even if it is indeed a company - and it is doubtful whether this is the case, it is a company connected to Global, BDB and Shabbat. In light of this, I determined that the very fact that Global is hiding behind another identity, especially when it comes to hiding behind an entity whose identity cannot be traced, constitutes in my view part of the fraudulent mask and a basis for fraud.