"Adv. Dotan: Since May 2016, you already know that there was deception here. Paul told you that it was too dangerous and advised you to seek the help of expert lawyers and sue. And you also thought that Steven Collins was negligent in his role. Is this true?
The witness, Mrs. Travis: Yes."
Moreover, on page 58, the plaintiff confirmed that even after this notice, she continued to trade in OFM (line 12), in accordance with Collins' instructions (line 34).
In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that in the advanced stages of trading, the plaintiff was aware of the significant risks involved in trading binary options, as well as the nullity of the representations that were presented to her by Global, mainly through Stephen Collins, but the plaintiff closed her eyes.
To this, it should be added that the plaintiff confirmed that during the course of her trading through OFM, she traded on other platforms at the same time (page 40, lines 17-22). In addition, the plaintiff Ben/15 confirmed in her cross-examination testimony that in July 2016, after she lost her investment in OFM, she invested a total of £39,500 in a company called Plus Option, where she claimed that she had profits, but she managed to withdraw only £6,500 from the account (her testimony on page 63), she also testified that in March 2017 she made a Forex investment in a company called MIB (see her testimony on page 64) and that this company also misled her. In addition, the plaintiff testified that she invested money in a company called Ever Fax and also lost money there (her testimony on page 65). Moreover, with regard to her investment in Plus Option, the plaintiff testified (from line 28 on page 65 to line 10 on page 66) that the employee of this company, who was in contact with her, told her that he had no idea why she had lost so much money and that Stephen Collins was a good consultant and that it was not suitable for him and that he could help her return the money - i.e., the plaintiff confirmed that she had invested in that company. Although she knew of an alleged connection between her and OFM - a company that she claimed deceived her. I am of the opinion that these facts show that part of the plaintiff's damage also stemmed from her own tendency to invest in venture investments and her aspiration for a quick profit, and moreover, they are capable of imposing some of the liability for the plaintiff's damages to her, since they show that it is not only the misrepresentations that led the plaintiff to invest - and the evidence is the withdrawal and investment even after these became clear to her, and moreover, In a company that is ostensibly connected to the same company that deceived her.