So far as to the false representations that were proven to be presented to the plaintiff and the fraudulent mask in light of which the plaintiff contracted with Global. Alongside all of these - i.e., alongside the representations that were proven to have been presented - I find it necessary to clarify and emphasize that the plaintiff did not claim - and more than necessary it should be clarified that she did not even prove - that the defendant stole her money. However, according to the plaintiff, Global in its recommendations, through its employees, led to the plaintiff investing in risk investments in a way that led to the loss of all of her money. As for this, I will add and emphasize - the plaintiff did not present any evidence that the transactions in which she entered into were not authentic - that is, in practice, where it was written that she had lost her money, she should not have lost her money. The plaintiff has not yet claimed, and all the more so that she has not proved, that in the face of her positions, there was no other real client who entered into counter positions, and therefore, when she lost her money, the arena stood against her, and therefore, the arena was the one that actually won all of her losses. Moreover, the plaintiff did not prove that Global was the one that actually operated the arena. With regard to this, and as I have written above, I have a suspicion that Global and the Arena are one and the same - however, in this regard I will emphasize that no unequivocal evidence was presented to support this, and therefore this is not a suspicion that has crystallized into a determination.
- the tort of fraud;
I am of the opinion that the facts as proved in the course of the proceeding and as detailed above, are, in my opinion, sufficient to indicate the existence of a cause of action by the plaintiff against the employees of Global and consequently also against Global for fraud.
Thus, the tort of fraud is defined in section 56 of the Torts Ordinance as follows: