Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 45944-12-20 Helen Travis v. Global Guardianship Technologies (2010) Ltd. - part 58

Without derogating from the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that to the tractate of deception we should add two who also had a Shabbat partner, or at least to whom Shabbat was aware of Shabbat and even tried to justify them.  First, the use of stage names, and second, the concealment regarding the conflict of interest between Global and its employees and its customers.  With regard to stage names, as determined by me above, Shabbat justified in his affidavit the use of stage names on the grounds that it was intended to protect the privacy of the employees, as well as to make it easier for the customers to pronounce the names.  I rejected these arguments above and determined that I am of the opinion that the use of stage names (and in particular the use of foreign names as well as the use of the same name for a number of employees) was also done deliberately and as part of the fraudulent scheme, both in order to create a special relationship between the customer and the employee and in order to support the representation that this is a foreign company and foreign workers and not an Israeli company, and finally in order to make it difficult for the customers to locate - at the end of the day - the party with whom they operated.  As noted, Shabbat justified the use of stage names, and moreover even claimed that it was done intentionally (although in his view, it was not deliberately deliberate), i.e., he was at least aware of the use of this mechanism.  Given the above, this use is also part of the fraudulent mask or fraudulent mechanism used by Shabbat.  Similarly, Shabbat Tzadik and explained the remuneration mechanism of Global and its employees - a mechanism which, as stated, was determined by me to establish a conflict of interest between the employees and Global.  This is because it is in the interest of Global and its employees to motivate customers to invest as much money as possible, to enter as many positions as possible (even opposing positions) and not to withdraw their money, even though the multitude of operations and the large investment will ultimately increase the clients' losses.