Sixth, the plaintiff's transfer "from hand to hand", that is, between one representative and back, without her requesting it, and in particular as the plaintiff's "great privilege" to work with these people, seemed dubious to me as soon as I read the correspondence. So was the suggestion to "upgrade" to a higher imitator. The defendants were unable to show that the defendant did indeed have different functionaries in terms of their knowledge, the type of "strategy" they proposed, and the extent to which they were available to each client, and that there were departments into which the clients were classified according to distinguishing characteristics. There is no escaping the determination that this characteristic of conduct is also intended to serve the defendant's basic goals: that the client will remain attached to her for as long as possible and that he will continue to invest money out of his own pocket during this time.
Seventh, the plaintiff testified that in the short period of time, about a month and a half in total, in which her account with the defendant operated, a very large number of buying and selling actions were carried out. "There were a lot, a lot of actions. between 80 and 100" (ibid., p. 13, para. 35). A multiplicity of actions may be a hallmark of the fact that their purpose is not necessarily to benefit the account holder, but rather to create an artificial volume of activity and also to profit – the defendant, not the customer – from the very performance of each and every action.
- My determination is therefore that the defendant and her people made a fairly sophisticated misrepresentation, intended to blind the plaintiff's eyes and cause her to spend as much of her money as possible and transfer it to their pockets, without a rational connection to the degree of their success or the degree of logic in the investments they made. The financial damage caused to the plaintiff as a result of this representation completes the foundations of the tort of fraud, as it is subtle In the section 56 To the Ordinance The Torts. This matter, but understandably, rises to the level of defects in good faith in the conclusion and fulfillment of a contract, and establishes for the plaintiff the contractual grounds that she claims in her statement of claim.
- I accept, although again this is not the main thing, because The defendant further breached the legal obligation according to The Law for Regulating Investment Consulting, Investment Marketing and Investment Portfolio Management, 5755-1995. "Investment Consulting" defined in the first section of the law: "advising others regarding the feasibility of investing, holding, buying or selling securities or financial assets; Whether directly or indirectly, including through advertising, circulars, opinions, mail, facsimile or any other means...". "Investment portfolio management" is, in this law, "Executing transactions, at discretion, to the account of others". The second section of the law states that "A person shall not engage in investment advice unless he is licensed as an advisor; A person shall not engage in investment portfolio management unless he holds a portfolio manager's license...".
These provisions in the legislation are intended "for the benefit or protection of him" (the language of section 63(a) of the Torts Ordinance) of the defendant's clients, including the plaintiff. Since it has been proven that the defendant is an Israeli company, I am of the opinion that those of its representatives, who engaged in these activities, should not have operated in or from Israel without a license. None of the defendants proved that this condition was met. Its violation, it is clear, played a part in the bad result, i.e., the damage caused to the plaintiff. If the defendant had employed authorized representatives, it would have been, according to the purpose of the license and according to its criteria, that the conduct of the defendant's representatives would not have come into the world as described above, and as a result – the damage caused.