Civil Case 9833-06-20 Thorwartl v. Infantiva Marketing Israel in Tax Appeal 21 inJuly 2025

The Prosecution

1. 1. The plaintiff, a German citizen, was persuaded to deposit money in the hands of defendant 1. The defendant was a company that, through a website and skilled salespeople, offered the callers to trade in the capital market through it, under the brand name (which is also a domain name on the network): "RTCfinance".  The plaintiff, who was exposed to an advertisement on the Internet, opened an account with the company and began depositing sums of money in it.  Even after she lost these funds, the salespeople persuaded her not to stop depositing funds, promising her financial "bonuses" and creating the impression that she would benefit from them.  In the accumulation of losses, and after she wished to withdraw the balance of her money, she was given a choice: to receive a substantial sum less than that which had been invested and lost, and to sign an agreement in which she waived any claim and claim; Or continue to trade through the company until the losses are covered.  The plaintiff found herself forced to choose the first option.  Subsequently, this claim was filed.
2. The claim against defendant 1 claimed, on the tort level, fraud and breach of a statutory duty (or alternatively, as always, negligence). It was claimed that the defendant's representatives, who used pseudonyms, posed as expert brokers when none of them were so; that the company did not have a license to offer transactions in financial assets and that the activity was presented as assistance and advice to the plaintiff, while its purpose was to inject the investment funds into the pockets of the company and its people.  The contractual grounds of the claim were cancellation and restitution due to deception, as well as of the performance of a contract in bad faith.  In the matter of the waiver agreement, coercion and oppression were also claimed.  Remedies: Restitution of the money invested and compensation for the mental anguish.

At an early stage of the proceeding, in the first pre-trial, it was stated that defendant 1 had found herself in a process of voluntary liquidation.  A certificate from the Registrar of Companies was presented that the company was registered as "liquidated".  In the second pre-trial, counsel for the plaintiff announced that he had petitioned the District Court for the "rehabilitation" of this defendant.  On December 27, 2021, the Tel Aviv District Court ruled (Civil Case 7823-04-21; The Honorable Judge Rachel Arkobithat society will come back to life.  The company has come back from the dead, but it has never filed a statement of defense against this lawsuit.

3. Defendant 2, Samuel (Shlomi) Falcon, who was registered as a director of defendant 1 and held in it through a company owned by him, defendant 3, was, as alleged, the living spirit of the activity. He must be held liable for personal liability of an officer, for torts of fraud and breach of statutory duty, and the veil of incorporation must be lifted in his case due to the abuse of the separate legal personality of defendant 1.

According to the plaintiff, in order to make it difficult to locate those responsible, additional sole proprietorship companies were established, namely defendants 3, 4, 6 and 7, which held part of the ownership of defendant 1.  In each of these, respectively, defendants 2, 5 and 8 were registered as directors.  They were personally involved, in the operation of defendant 1 and in its false act.  They , too, the companies and the people , must be obligated by virtue of the lifting of the veil.

4. The plaintiff submitted an affidavit of the main witness in English. She gave her details to the defendant after she came across an advertisement for her on the Internet in April 2017.  A man called her, who introduced himself by the pseudonym, "Ben Voster" and claimed that he was a broker on behalf of "RTCfinance".  This person explained that the company and its people are skilled entities, licensed to engage in trading through financial instruments.  He offered the plaintiff, through the consulting, training, and trading services provided by the brand, to earn a "nice addition" to her monthly salary and to obtain an improved return on the money she saved.

The plaintiff was persuaded and opened an account and then contacted, in an e-mail message, by another person, who introduced himself as "Bruno Englewood" and took the trouble to tell about his many years of experience in "technical" trading in foreign currency and binary options, while using probability-based computing tools.  "Bruno" explained that he was the risk manager, who would accompany the plaintiff in her activities in order to enable her to become a "successful trader" and accumulate profits in the account.