Defendant 5 then added: "One more time, I'll wait a second, I'll put things in order. Infantiva provided sales services to commercial arenas that had licenses abroad from 2013, 2014 to the end of 2016 - early 2017. Icon Markets until mid-2016. During 2017, the company ceased, at the beginning of 2017, the company ceased its activity and as of the relevant period there was no employee engaged in sales" (ibid., at p. 21, paras. 29-33). I found it difficult to accept these words, which did not appear in the statement of defense or in the main evidence, as reliable.
- Finally, I am of the opinion that the defense failed in its efforts to present defendant 1 and its associates as those who merely provided "sales services" to other companies. It was proven that defendant 1 itself engaged in sales and thus it also introduced itself to the world Defendant 2, who, when confronted with a number of places where such a presentation came, had difficulty dealing with the things that were presented to him (transcript, at p. 28, paras. 16-17; p. 31, paras. 13-34; p. 32, paras. 4-8). "I think it was very, very", defendant 2 testified, "What we always do We tried to introduce The one we give..." And he hastened to correct: "And what we really did", "It's sales services to [other companies]" (Name, at p. 31, paras. 30-32. emphasis added).
- In my opinion, the alleged separation between defendant 1 and the plaintiff remains the wish of the defendants. It has not been proven before this court. I found that the plaintiff met the burden, to the extent placed on her shoulders, to show that defendant 1 had a share in the operation of the investment platform RTC and in direct dealings with investors, including the plaintiff.
Fraud and breach of statutory duty
- There are several foundations for my conclusion that justice is with the plaintiff and she was deceived. First, I'm afraid that the correspondence speaks for itself. They do not reflect the bona fide conduct of an investment advisor vis-à-vis a potential investor. It is evident that the defendant's representatives urged the plaintiff to transfer more and more funds, regardless of the degree of risk, that no need was explained to the client, and without seeing before their eyes, first and foremost, the matter of the plaintiff. It is evident that solicitation for investments is not one of the proper characteristics of the role of an investment advisor or even of someone who manages an investment portfolio or similar financial asset for another. In conversations with "Giovanni", this solicitation is so obvious, the greed is so great and the pressure is so considerable that it is clear that the defendant completely exceeded the service that was promised to the plaintiff in the first place.
Second, it was difficult to locate – not even in the evidence of the defendants – any evidence of the existence of a rational connection between the investments and their result. The loss seems to have written itself throughout the relationship between the parties. Although the plaintiff voiced, from time to time, her own positions on the merits of investments and the defendant's representatives referred to the various positions that were opened, but the correspondence reflects a considerable superficiality in this discourse, which is difficult to view as professional advice.