"Fraud is the false presentation of a fact, knowing that it is false or without belief in its truth or out of frivolity, when the presenter does not care whether it is true or false, and with the intention that the misrepresentation will act according to it; However, a claim for such representation may not be filed, unless it was intended to mislead the plaintiff, even misled him, and the plaintiff acted in accordance with it and thereby suffered pecuniary damage."
Other Municipal Applications 9057/07 David Appel v. State of Israel [Nevo] (April 2, 2012) (hereinafter: "the Dark Matter"), the Supreme Court reviewed the five cumulative elements that are required to prove in order to establish a cause of action for fraud (see the references detailed there in paragraph 35 of the judgment) as follows:
(a) False representation - As to this element, it was specified in paragraph 38 of the judgment in the Appel case that false representation also includes non-disclosure or partial disclosure which is in fact intended to conceal material parts of the truth.
(b) Lack of faith in the truthfulness of the representation;
(c) An intention that the representative will be misled by the representative and will act in reliance on it; Regarding this, it was detailed in paragraph 42 of the judgment in the Appel case that: "The tort of fraud is a tort that requires a mental state of intent. The requirement inherent in this foundation is that the defendant not only made some false representation, but that he intended to cause the representative to believe in that representation and act according to it (compare: Winfield, at p. 532)."
As for this mental element of "intention", it includes two separate planes - the rational plane, in which it must be shown that the harm "anticipated" the result, and the second plane - the emotional plane, within which it must be shown that he desires the outcome. In light of the inherent difficulty in tracing the intricacies of a person's psyche, the penal law establishes a "presumption of intent" and accordingly a person usually refers to the natural consequences arising from his actions (see Criminal Appeal 5828/14 State of Israel v. Kilani [Nevo] (March 4, 2015)). Other Municipal Applications 2167/16 Sanofi v. Unipharm in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (July 12, 2021), in paragraph 143 of the Supreme Court's judgment, it was held that: "Since the presumption of intention is a 'factual presumption', which arises 'from logic and life experience', there is no impediment to its use in a civil proceeding as well (subject to the difference in the degree of proof of the required factual basis. See: Yaakov Kedmi on the Evidence , vol. 4, 1781-1782 (2009)."