However, later on, from the evidence, it emerges that the plaintiff knew that she was losing money and that in the face of the representation that it was a safe investment that would guarantee her a monthly income, she realized that the money she deposited had been lost. In this regard, the plaintiff testified that as early as January 2016, she felt that she was in trouble - since she had taken money from her deceased mother's account and was required to take legal proceedings as a result of not being able to return them (see her testimony on page 44). The plaintiff further testified in this regard that at that stage she knew that the promise that she would receive a monthly income as a result of her investment would not be fulfilled (ibid.). Moreover, from the e-mail message sent by the plaintiff subject to N/7 (quoted almost in full in paragraph 40 above of the judgment), it appears that the plaintiff knew that, contrary to the promises, her money was not guaranteed. The plaintiff also understood that the so-called economic advice of the analysts on behalf of the company failed again and again. With regard to this, the plaintiff testified on page 52, lines 11-13, in the context of N/7:
"As I understand it, at the beginning of April 2016 you were aware of the fact that you might lose large sums, is that true?
The witness, Mrs. Travis: That's right."
Moreover, on page 53, lines 1-5, the plaintiff testified (I will note that the answer appears from my mouth, as it were, since I translated the plaintiff's words from English):
"Adv. Dotan: I don't understand you very well. Even if he assured you that the money was safe on April 8, you already knew that you had lost a lot, tens of thousands of pounds. And then you knew he wasn't, he didn't tell the truth.
The Honorable Judge Bibi: At this point, I already knew he wasn't telling the truth, so I sent him this email. Okay."
In addition, the plaintiff claimed that as a result of this (i.e., following her losses in April 2016), her money was transferred to a convalescence account, but in the course of the hearing, the plaintiff was unable to clarify exactly what representation was presented to her regarding this account and how this account - which on the face of it operates similarly to her account - was supposed to lead to a different result. Thus, on page 67, lines 7-21, the plaintiff testified in connection with the account that was presented to her as a convalescence account that: