In addition, it was argued that a curtain should be raised between Global and Shabbat, since the corporate veil was used for fraudulent purposes. This is because, according to the plaintiff, this is a group of companies that were established only to create a smokescreen separating Shabbat from the customers, in order to mislead the customers who did not know who the real party was who contracted with them and acted with their money. As for this, according to the plaintiff, as part of the fraudulent scheme adopted by Global and Shabbat, they claimed that Global only provided services to an unknown foreign company, and on the basis of this claim, they claimed the absence of rivalry and even an inappropriate forum. It was also claimed that Shabbat used corporations to conceal his financial ties to the activity.
It was further argued that the veil should be lifted in circumstances in which the plaintiff is an involuntary creditor who entered into an agreement with Global and did not even know of its existence.
The plaintiff further argues that the corporate veil should be lifted in circumstances in which Shabbat was personally involved in the tort - since he was involved in mechanisms of remuneration according to the volume of trade that is at the core of the fraud. In this context, the plaintiff refers to an agreement between BDB and Global (P/15), which indicates that BDB paid Global, in exchange for marketing services, a certain percentage of its income that was based on the volume of trading carried out by the investors. It was argued that since Shabbat confirmed that he had signed P/15 (in this context the plaintiff refers to page 141, line 6 of the transcript), this is sufficient to establish his direct involvement in the operation of the mechanism. The plaintiff also refers to the testimony given in the proceeding in the United States by the accountant Kosma - who served as Shabbat's accountant and whom Shabbat confirmed that he was the authorized party to declare on his behalf - who admitted that Shabbat was the party responsible for defining the parameters of the bonus. Moreover, it was claimed that the use of pseudonyms, the concealment of the location in Israel, and the method in which Global allegedly provided marketing services to foreign companies, were intended to create a shelter for Global and its people, in order to enable them to carry out the fraud over time. It was claimed that this was an organized, systematic and prolonged fraud, in which Global used, among other things, technology that allowed its representatives in Israel to have a telephone line with a Hong Kong prefix and that OFM was registered in the banking system as if it were located in London. It was argued that support for the fact that this was the modus operandi of Shabbat and Global can be found in the following: that Shabbat signed P/15, which regulated the method whereby Global provided marketing services; Justified the practice of pseudonyms, including the claim that a pseudonym was shared by several employees; The thermodynamics and location began in 2010-2012, when Shabbat admitted that he was a global manager; And Shabbat's version that OFM is from Belize, which was first alleged in his interrogation, indicates his direct involvement in the cover-up.