Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 45944-12-20 Helen Travis v. Global Guardianship Technologies (2010) Ltd. - part 57

With regard to the ambiguity regarding the identity of OFM, as well as the connection between it and Global and Shabbat - I have determined above first that Shabbat has information that could have cleared this ambiguity, but Shabbat has chosen not to present information relating to this.  Moreover, I have determined that his version as to the identity of OFM is unreliable and that in my opinion it is nothing but that OFM is a global or at least a company associated with Global, Shabbat or BDB.  Moreover, the proceeding presented P/15 - which is an agreement that was ostensibly signed between Global and BDB, in the framework of which - as in the present case - Global undertook to provide marketing services to BDB.  As for this agreement, as determined by me in paragraph 44 of the judgment, this agreement was signed in the name of Shabbat's father, Global, while Shabbat himself signed it on behalf of BDB.  This is despite the fact that Shabbat testified that on the relevant dates he served as Global's manager.  In these circumstances - I expressed my opinion that deliberately and in order to distance the companies from each other - another (and not Shabbat) signed the agreement on behalf of Global.  Moreover, as I added and wrote, this modus operandi, in which Global is presented only as having provided marketing services to another company, which supposedly operates the platform or the activity, is also the same in this case.  However, in this case, Shabbat did not find a way to remove the veil of fog and clarify who was the other company to which Global provided marketing services only and with which the plaintiff allegedly contracted.  Moreover, as detailed above, at least two of the actions that were carried out in the plaintiff's account are related to BDB, in a way that ostensibly links OFM to BDB.  The concentration of these circumstances shows that the manner of the engagement, the ambiguity regarding the identity of OFM and the connection between it and Global, the connection between it and Shabbat and the connection between it and BDB (related to Shabbat) - all of these were done with fraudulent intent - in order to conceal from the plaintiff the party with whom it contracted.  Moreover, the thread connecting all the mentioned factors - OFM, Global and BDB is Shabbat.  However, as stated, he found himself in the framework of the legal process to continue to conceal OFM's true identity , and moreover, he tried to distance himself from it and even from Global (from a claim - and even this claim I found unreliable - that he stopped managing Global in 2013).  Given the aforesaid, I determine that the establishment of the system of companies or entities or entities with which the plaintiff allegedly contracted, was done with fraudulent intent, and that in these circumstances (similar to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Samuel Diamond case) it is possible for the person who established this system - i.e., Shabbat - to fulfill the foundations of the tort of fraud.