The plaintiff admitted that the R&C document, i.e., terms and conditions, was given for her review at the beginning of the relationship with the defendant, but that this document was also long and complex. "I read it," she testified, sounding confident to me, "but it's like opening an account in a bank, you can't read the 20 pages it contains" (ibid., at p. 11, paras. 30-32).
Fourth, I am afraid that those "bonuses", which did not exist and were not really created, since the defendant did not insist on returning them at the end of the engagement, were not intended to help the plaintiff but only to deepen the hole in which she went and found herself. It is inconceivable that investment advice would also include the placement of money at the disposal of the investor, such that it is first presented that it is given unconditionally and without qualifications, and then it turns out that consideration is sought for it. My conclusion is that, in practice, these bonuses are intended to hide from the customer's eyes the real losses that his account has incurred – in relation to the sums that the client brought out of his own pocket – and to spur him to spend additional money despite his losses.
Fifth, it was proven before the court beyond any doubt that the representatives of defendant 1, who accompanied the clients-investors, deliberately used pseudonyms. Ms. Asses added in her testimony: "The name I used [was] 'Kate' [and the last name: 'Miller']. We were told that it is worthwhile to have an international name" (ibid., at p. 3, paras. 27-32). This misrepresentation was complete, for not only were names and surnames invented, but the e-mail addresses anchored these pseudonyms as if they were the real names of the correspondents.
I wondered to myself what is less international by the name "Michal" (you can also say: "Michel") than the name: "Giovanni", for example, but that's not the main thing. The main thing is that the company's representatives consciously used names and surnames that are not their own, and this is in the course of an ongoing relationship, oral and written, with the customers. "It is true," replied defendant 2 in his cross-examination, "I do not remember the names exactly, but it is true that they all had pseudonyms" (ibid., at p. 29, paras. 25-29). "I don't see a problem with pseudonyms," he continued, "I think it's a well-known practice that is also done in very large companies when you call customer service" (ibid., at p. 30, paras. 34-37). Unfortunately, I do not share this thought. In a relationship of the type of investment advice and management, which is not "customer service" and which is of great importance to the degree of trust between the parties as well as to the individual knowledge and experience of the particular representatives, this conduct seems to me to be very difficult. It does not contribute, this is efficacy, to the conclusion that the defendant acted in good faith.