After detailing the distinctions between the possible groups, the court turned to examine the possibility of transferring the burden of compensation from the fraudulent tortfeasor to the negligent injured party in terms of the purposes of the tort law. With regard to this, the court concentrated and ruled in paragraph 69 of the judgment that:
"The affirmative action and the economic perspective detailed above in fact imply the insight that is the main point here: in cases of the first group, that of damage that does not involve actual welfare for the tortfeasor, there is generally no deterrence from applying the contributory fault defense in a manner that will lead to the division of the damage, each according to his relative fault... This can have consequences even in the case of fraud... In cases included in the second group, there is a greater reluctance to apply the protection in such a way that the tortfeasor will not bear at least a decisive part, if not all of the damage. Here it is important to classify the case into a subset of harm involving the welfare of the tortfeasor: in the first subcategory of the same group that we reviewed above, our willingness to invoke the defense of contributory fault in a manner that reduces the compensation will depend on the circumstances... In the second subcategory of the same group, that of the "transfer cases", it seems that it is difficult to reconcile a situation in which we are willing to apply the contributory fault defense in a way that removes the burden of full compensation of the injured party from the shoulders of the tortfeasor - whose welfare is a mirror image of the damage he caused. "
- From the general to the individual - the application of the distinctions made by the Supreme Court in the Appel case, with respect to the various groups, shows that the case at hand was prima facie included in the first situation in the second group - that is, a situation in which the tort of fraud led to an additional welfare to the global - since the plaintiff benefited from commissions as a result of the plaintiff's activity, but there is no correspondence between the plaintiff's damage and this welfare. This is because it has not been proven that the trading operations carried out by the plaintiff were not authentic, or that in contrast to the positions performed by the plaintiff, there was no other client but Global, and therefore it cannot be determined that the plaintiff's damage constitutes a mirror image of the addition of welfare to Global. However, in the circumstances as proven, there is a connection between the plaintiff's damage - resulting from the trading operations carried out by it, and the benefit to Global - which resulted directly from these trading operations, since, as determined above, not only did Global earn its commissions from the gap between the clients' positions, but as a result, it also incentivized its clients to invest more and more funds and increase their trading volume. In a way that led to an increase in fees for Global on the one hand and a loss of their money on the other. Given that the group to which the case in this case belongs is not the group of "transfer cases" - i.e., it is not the second situation in the second group, but rather the first situation in the second group - then in accordance with theDark judgment (contrary to what is claimed by the plaintiff) - it is possible to order the deduction of the plaintiff's share of the damage in accordance with her liability, i.e., in accordance with the fault of the contributor.
As I have already noted the plaintiff's liability for damages, I find it to be at a rate of 50%. With regard to this, I am of the opinion that the extent of the plaintiff's liability for the damage increased as her continued trading. This is because, initially, contributory fault can be attributed to the plaintiff, in view of the existence of warnings regarding the risk in trading - warnings against which the plaintiff was presented with reassuring representations, but as the business progressed, little by little, at least some of the facts became clear to the plaintiff, and therefore, the contributor's fault increased. In this regard, the plaintiff first confirmed in the cross-examination that within the framework of the OFM website there were warnings regarding trading in binary options and that she had checked the site prior to opening her account (see page 57, lines 17-23). Moreover, the plaintiff confirmed that prior to the commencement of trading she was disturbed and claimed that every investment caused her to be concerned (see her testimony on page 25, lines 12-16) - testimony which, on the face of it, should have led to an ostensibly meticulous examination of her investments - which on the face of it was not carried out. In addition, at least the plaintiff's alleged concern led her to take precautions later on or to be attentive to the "warning lights" which, as will be detailed below, were lit, but as will be detailed on the face of it, the plaintiff herself has her eyes on these lights. The plaintiff further confirmed in her testimony that she had signed documents in which warnings appeared indicating that this was risky trading, and that in order to trade in binary options, financial skill was required, and she also confirmed that she did not have such skill (see her testimony on pages 29-34 and also, specifically on page 31, lines 10-14). Thus, at the beginning of the trade, the plaintiff was aware of the risks involved in trading, which were explicitly brought to her - inter alia, in the warnings read by the plaintiff. At the same time, the plaintiff made the investments based on the reassuring representations made to it by the defendants, inter alia, in view of her belief that while skill is required in order to make the investments, it is precisely the role of OFM, Collins and the company's analysts - to provide it with a set of knowledge and experience in order to make the investments. In these circumstances, I do not believe that the plaintiff can be attributed contributory fault to a significant extent at this stage.