[Defendant]: No.
[Interrogator]: So why do you say that?
[Defendant]: Because I'm not saying that... I do not promise" (P/2 , p. 260, paras. 1-17).
Moreover, during his interrogation and when the defendant was presented with a notice that he had sent to one of the investors and was asked about his statement that it was a high return and a low risk, and how he could determine that it was a low risk, He replied: "I don't know. I don't have a smart answer. This is besides the answer I tell people in the first place, first of all, check it at the expense of demo , then check on a small bill" (P/2, p. 333, paras. 20 ff.).
Finally, in his interrogation, the defendant claimed that the landing page in which a return of 25% was stated was not updated, and that after the loss of one of the clients (Harel Levy) in April 2019, he began to explain the risks in trading. However, these claims are contradicted by the rest of the evidence, both the testimonies of the clients and the representations made by the defendant, which we have mentioned at length.
- The conclusion that arises is that in the framework of the marketing efforts, the defendant made misleading representations according to which robotic trading yields a safe return and may even generate "passive income", and at least the risk in the investment is very low. As we detailed above, the presentations were presented in videos, on the landing page, and even during the individual contact with the customers. From this, another conclusion emerges that, contrary to the defendant's claim during the individual conversations with the client, he did not act to sharpen the risks, on the contrary.
- The defendant knew that trading in a robot entailed a risk and could cause a loss. This is evidenced by the fact that the defendant himself traded in the robot and lost money (P/4, pp. 128-129). During his interrogation, the defendant was asked whether the past returns he presented to the clients were genuine, but he evaded giving an answer (P. 9.2025, pp. 410-411). In his interrogation at the NAA, the defendant noted that the expression "low risk" in relation to speculative trading was "unnecessary" (P/2, p. 335, paras. 1-11), and when asked why he did not emphasize to the customers the high risk of loss, he noted that this was done for marketing reasons, that it was a "mistake" and that he had learned a "valuable lesson" (P/2, p. 378, paras. 1-15). Contrary to the true state of affairs, the defendant presented the clients with a façade of "passive income" and a chance of high returns, without exposing the clients to the risk of loss and erosion of the investment within a short time.
In his interrogation at the NAA, the defendant tried to claim that the risk was low, since the investment required from each client was worth only US$1,000, and hence the maximum loss was not expected to exceed this amount (P/4, p. 97, paras. 20-22; p. 115). This argument should not be accepted, because the risk must be assessed by ignoring the value of the investment. For some of the customers, who are young, the amount invested was all their money. In addition, some of the clients invested more than $1,000 and the evidence shows that at a certain point the defendant announced that he would stop maintaining accounts in the amount of an investment of $1,000 because it was a small amount that was not financially justified.
- During his testimony in court, the defendant claimed that any reasonable person who enters a merchant's arena knows that this is speculative trading at high risk (P. 9.2025, p. 436, paras. 20-28). As we have detailed above, the picture that emerges from the clients' testimonies is different and is inconsistent with the assumption implicit in the defendant's argument. Indeed, two of the clients stated that they were aware of the risk of losing funds, but their knowledge was general knowledge and not the result of the defendant's explanation of the nature of the activity and the risk involved. It should also be noted that the defendant refrained from clarifying the risk involved in trading in Preston, since it is an arena where trading carries a high risk and was presented to the clients as an investment house (see the landing page - P/10; P/161, P/162; as well as the testimonies of the clients: Kovacs - February 26, 2023, p. 215, paras. 21-26; Khoury - p. 151, paras. 31-36; Asa - p. 311, paras. 7-11; Yechiel - P. 22.6.2023, pp. 356, 37-38). Another element that should not be ignored is that the defendant's representations relate to robotic trading - a field of commerce that should not be known to anyone familiar with trading in the capital market, neither on the general level nor on the individual level of the specific robot used by the defendant. Moreover, the defendant presented trading through the robot as a tool designed to generate "passive income", meaning that installing it in the account would make it unnecessary for customers to engage in the account, since the robot is supposed to perform the activity automatically after defining the trading characteristics in advance.
- The indictment accuses the defendant of fraudulently obtaining the consent of "at least 9 customers to carry out trading." Since one of the clients did not testify at the trial, it is eight clients and not nine. Moreover, despite the wording of the indictment "at least", I clarify that the defendant's conviction is for the commission of the offense of fraud against those eight clients. In order to remove any doubt, the evidence that we referred to regarding the potential clients who are not part of the prosecution's witnesses, is intended only to strengthen the evidence regarding the misrepresentations.
- The Risk Disclaimer document. At the margin of the landing page, after the page in which the user is asked to leave contact information, there are two pages written in English in small font in which a dense caption is noted under a number of topics such as: warnings about risk in trade, warnings about risk in internet trading, risk that it is speculative and volatile trading, and more. The same document is projected for a few seconds in some of the videos in which the defendant presented the data regarding the investment. The text includes a disclosure about the activity and disclaimer conditions. In the document itself, it was noted that its purpose was to emphasize the general risks; Because there is no guarantee of achieving any returns and the existence of a risk that the participant will lose funds. The document noted that trading is of the Margined Currency Trading type, which is one of the riskiest forms of financial trading, and is only suitable for sophisticated investors and institutions with extensive knowledge of this trading method. It was also found that "any opinion regarding the future trend of prices regarding currencies or assets is the sole opinion of Assaf Tal and does not reflect the opinion of anyone else and is not guaranteed in any way."
However, the said text does not absolve the defendant of his responsibility for the commission of the offense of fraudulent receipt and does not remove criminal responsibility from the defendant. First, some of what is stated in that document contradicts the clear representations that the defendant made both on the landing page and in the videos. The contradiction can be illustrated by a comparison between the title of the landing page in which it was stated "How to generate a return of 25% (or more) passively and completely automatically at low risk?" and the sentence noted in the beginning of the text "Margined currency trading is one of the riskiest forms of investment...". In addition, some of the representations made by the defendant, such as the defendant's expertise and professionalism, are not mentioned in that document (and see the defendant's evasive answers on this matter, September 10, 2025, at pp. 401-402). The fact that the defendant presented misleading representations alongside representations that contradict the representations or ignore some of the representations, does not invalidatethe misleading representations. It should be noted that in his interrogation at the NAA, the defendant agreed that there was a discrepancy between the information on the landing page and the same text (P/2, p. 345, line 14 ff.; P/4, p. 110, s. 19 to p. 112, s. 1).