0Causal Connection
- In order to convict the defendant of the offense of fraudulent receipt, it is not enough to make fraudulent representations and acceptance. The connection between the two, i.e., the causal connection between the representations and the clients' consent to trade in their accounts must be proven. The picture that emerges from the evidence clearly shows that there is a causal connection.
- What is the test relevant to the causal connection in the offense of fraudulent receipt?
In Criminal Appeal 1784/08 Perry v. State of Israel, para. 41 (2009), the following was established regarding the test according to which the existence of a causal connection must be determined:
"Fraudulent receipt of a thing is a consequential offense that requires a causal connection between the fraud and the receipt of the 'thing.' The fraud must be the 'effective reason' for accepting the matter [...], but there may be situations in which there is doubt as to the exclusivity of the misrepresentations in transferring the 'thing' from the fraudulent to the fraudulent, but this will not negate the latter's conviction of the offense, provided that the aforementioned representations played a significant role in assessing the situation of the fraudster."
See also: Criminal Appeal 4190/13 Samuel v. State of Israel, paragraph 78 of the judgment of Justice Barak-Erez (November 18, 2014); Criminal Appeal 7621/14 Gottesdiener v. State of Israel, paragraphs 33-35 of the judgment of Justice N. Hendel and the references therein (March 1, 2017).
In Criminal Appeal 2455/22 State of Israel v. Bramly (July 6, 2023) (hereinafter: the Bramley case), the Supreme Court again discussed the issue of the causal connection required in the offense of fraudulent receipt. While Justice Y. Kasher was of the opinion that the test for the causal connection is the "unful" test, the majority opinion - Justice E. Stein and Justice Y. Elron - held that the test is not a test of causation, without which there is no cause. According to the majority's position, it is necessary to examine whether the false representation constituted the effective reason, or in the words of Justice Stein: "Any significant effect of the misrepresentation on the fraudster's decision to deposit money or assets with the fraudster or his agents satisfies the requirement of a causal connection between the act of fraud and the receipt of the matter" (Bramley, para. 67).
- The fabric of evidence that has been placed before me indicates the existence of a causal connection. The representations made by the defendant, first and foremost the representation regarding the low risk and high returns, constituted the effective reason for the customers' consent to trading in the arena. In my opinion, the circumstances are so clear that it is possible to determine that the test of incomplete is met.
- As detailed earlier, the defendant posted videos on the online means (which he even sent to the various customers as part of his contact with them, for example, P/55, pp. 1-4; P/85, p. 2; p. 244, S. 6). In addition, there is a landing page to which the clients are referred that includes the representations, in particular the representations about his expertise and the returns that can be achieved. The customers testified that they were exposed to the content of the videos and were influenced by the presentations that were presented.
Khoury confirmed that he watched the videos on Facebook after his son took an interest in the defendant's activity and that his decision to invest through the defendant was influenced by the amount of return presented (Feb. 13, 2023, p. 142, s. 6; p. 155, s. 7; p. 143, s. 12; p. 154 sifa ff.).