Apart from the above, the page is replete with professional explanations about investing in gold, returns, graphs, and many other data.
- In the video (P/11) the defendant can be seen narrating and introducing himself as an "expert in gold trading"; holder of a bachelor's and master's degrees in business administration "specializing in the capital market"; "Engaged in the field of trade and investments for more than 20 years"; Because he acquired his knowledge "in the most prestigious institutions in Israel and in the world"; that he has done "dozens of courses on topics related to trading, investments and financial instruments, technical analysis, fundamental analysis, algorithms, stock options, indices, bonds, ETFs, commodities, currencies..."; and that he acquired the experience as a result of "years of trading in the various capital markets and of course a great deal of trial and error" [sic]. See also video P/12, which is generally similar to P/11, but at the beginning the Risk Disclaimer document is projected for a few seconds, which we will refer to below.
- As noted, the representations made by the defendant were not only online, since in his conversations with the clients, he also presented himself as an expert and experienced in the capital market. This conclusion is learned from the testimony of the clients. Khoury testified that the defendant presented himself as an expert and experienced in capital market investments (February 13, 2023, p. 146, paras. 1-6; p. 144, paras. 25-31); In his testimony, Kehat noted that the defendant had mentioned to him his expertise and experience in the field (February 26, 2023, p. 195, paras. 30-33); Kovacs noted in his testimony that the defendant presented himself as an expert in the capital market, an expert in the field of automated trading robots, and "conveyed a very reliable statement with very great experience" (P. 2.2023, p. 214, paras. 19-22); Harel noted in his testimony that the defendant presented himself as a practitioner in the field for several years and that he had many customers (P. 26.2.2023, p. 236, s. 8; p. 238, s. 28-36; p. 239, s. 1-7); Similarly, Buskila noted that the defendant presented to him that he had been working in the field for several years, that he had created the robot and that the robot was "his product" (F. 26.2.2023, p. 268; S. 21-23). Assa also testified that the defendant frequently used professional words and presented himself as an expert (P. 8.3.2023, p. 298, Q. 6; p. 301, Q. 10-12), presented graphs of accounts in which profits were made (P. 8.3.2023, p. 301, Q. 25-27), and also presented himself as a gold expert who studied the field, because he has experience and is an investor in the field, and that he has many other clients (P. 8.3.2023, p. 304, S. 1-3). Assa added that the defendant presented the robot and noted that he had examined its activity for years (3-4 years) and also detailed its "strategies" (March 8, 2023, p. 304, para. 9; p. 319, paras. 10-12). Yechiel noted that he understood from the defendant that he had been dealing with the subject for "years", that he had satisfied customers, that he had built the robot, and in the words of the witness: "I understood from him that he was a serious computer man and he built the robot... And he has been trading for many years with many customers...." (P. 22.6.2023, p. 355, paras. 16-36); See also Buchnik's testimony in which he said that the defendant presented himself as having experience in the field of gold trading, and that he was the one who built the robot (P. 26.2.2023, p. 287, paras. 1-2).
- I give credence to the testimony of the witnesses as to the representations that the defendant presented to them. In general, their testimony is consistent with the representations made by the defendant in the videos and on the landing page. The fact that the witnesses agreed to place their trust in the defendant and to invest sums of money (in many cases in small sums, but some also in large amounts) reinforces this conclusion. In addition, the testimony of the witnesses is consistent with the publications, andis consistent with what the defendant himself stated during the relationship between him and his clients. When I came to examine the credibility of the witnesses, I gave my opinion that some of them were angry with the defendant and held him responsible for the losses or loss of their investment, and therefore I examined their testimony carefully, but I found that this did not detract from the credibility of the testimonies. Moreover, some of the witnesses tried to portray the defendant in a positive light. For example, Kehat, who stated that he believed that the defendant did not intend to deceive the customers and even spoke in praise of the robot, and detailed that it lacked additional definitions in order for it to succeed.
- The representations made by the defendant are not true at all, and it is clear from the evidence that the defendant knows with certainty that the representations he made are not true. There can be no dispute that, contrary to the representation presented, the defendant does not have advanced degrees in economics and business administration (P. September 10, 2025, pp. 397-400). The defendant is an electronics engineer by education (after studying at ORT Braude), and he does not have a degree in any field (P/2, p. 2, s. 10; p. 7, s. 1-18; the defendant's response to the indictment - January 22, 2023, p. 10, s. 57). In his testimony in court, the defendant replied to the question on this matter that he "does not confirm or deny" (P. September 10, 2025, pp. 397-400), and later noted that this was a marketing message and that it is possible that in retrospect he would have used more precise wording (P. September 10, 2025, p. 399, paras. 19 ff.). The argument raised in the defendant's summaries that "the degrees related to self-learning" and that he did not claim that this was a formal academic degree from a recognized institution and that the name of the institution was not even mentioned. Presenting the defendant as having advanced degrees in economics and management is misleading and constitutes a misrepresentation. There is no way to reconcile the defendant's education with the representation he made that he holds a bachelor's and master's degree in business administration "with a specialization in the capital market".
- I categorically reject the defendant's claim that "this is marketing language" and that the words were said in an exaggerated manner and therefore are devoid of criminal aspect. From what has been cited above, it emerges that this is not a slight and insignificant deviation from the state of affairs, but rather we are dealing with representations that do not correspond to the truth. Moreover, each representation should not be examined in its isolation and the representations regarding the titles should be examined from an overall perspective with the other representations. In his summaries, the defendant refers to Exhibit P/136 - a WhatsApp correspondence between him and Yair Asulin (who was engaged in editing the publications), from which he wishes to learn that he knew "that there are legal elements". The defendant's intention in this argument is unclear, and in any event, I have re-examined the exhibit and I do not believe that it can help the defendant, and perhaps even the opposite. As can be seen from P/136, p. 158, on February 18, 2019, the defendant wrote, "There are a lot of regulations and legal regulations here, so you can't write whatever you want in marketing language. There are many legal elements here," and later wrote, "That's why I've been investing a lot of time on every sentence and every word in order to be accurate, professional and reliable." As the judgment indicates, the representations do not correspond to reality.
- The representations that the defendant is a professional and veteran trader, that he is an expert in gold trading and that he has been engaged in the field for several years are also incorrect. The defendant testified that most of his professional life was in the field of his training (electronics engineer), and after he left the field, five years after 2019, he opened an independent business in the field of gardening, which ceased to operate in 2017 (P/2, pp. 7-8). Later, the defendant stated that he worked in the factory in 2018 until the beginning of 2019 but was fired due to non-compliance (P/2, p. 17, paras. 7-17). It therefore emerges that the defendant has never engaged in the field of commerce or investments in an institution that deals with this or in a professional manner.
Contrary to what he presented, the defendant did not have unique or exceptional experience in the field of commerce, and certainly not with 20 years of experience. The defendant stated that he had been trading in securities since 20 years ago, when he earned his first salary as a child (P/2, p. 30, s. 13 ff.), and explained that in addition to his occupations that are not related to the field, he engaged in trading for a few hours and more frequently when he was "between jobs" (P/2, pp. 32-36). These facts are also inconsistent with the presentation of the defendant as an expert.