Copied from Nevo
- a) Expertise and experience - the defendant presented himself as a professional and veteran trader in the capital market, with advanced degrees in economics and business administration, which he did not hold; and also gave clients representations that he was an expert in gold trading, knowledgeable in robotic trading, and had been engaged in it for several years. Contrary to the representations presented, the defendant never traded professionally in the capital market, had no formal training in the field, and traded using the robot for only a few months.
- b) The risks and prospects involved in trading in the arena - the defendant marketed robotic trading as an investment that yielded a high return at a low risk, and presented customers with false representations in relation to the high returns generated by his trading activity in the past, even though most of the accounts he managed were lost; The defendant also presented Pepperstone as an investment bank, and refrained from clarifying to the clients the risk involved in trading in trading arenas in general and in Pepperstone in particular. and the conflict of interest in which Pepperston is located.
- c) Legal activity - the defendant, who did not hold a standard management license, concealed from his clients that his activity in their accounts requires a license and is carried out in contravention of the provisions of the Consulting Law, and presented them with a false representation that his management of their investment portfolios was done in accordance with the law.
Finally, it was noted that in carrying out the actions detailed above, the defendant fraudulently obtained the consent of at least 9 customers to trade in the funds they deposited in the trading platform. The total amount invested by these clients was approximately US₪135,000, which is approximately ILS 435,000.
- In the second indictment, the defendant was charged with multiple offenses of managing cases without a license, under section 2(b) combined with section 39(a)(1) of the Counseling Law; an offense of offering to provide case management services without a license, multiple offenses under section 3A together with section 39(b)(12) of the Counseling Law.
At the beginning of the second indictment, it was noted that during the period relevant to the indictment, the defendant, who did not hold a license to manage portfolios, proposed three possible investment tracks through the trading robot that he marketed: a sales track, a rental track, and a "managed account" track. In the course of the sale, the defendant offered customers to purchase the robot from him and trade through it. In the rental track, the defendant offered customers to rent the robot for a limited period of time in which they would trade with it. In a managed account track, the defendant offered customers to characterize the robot for them and trade it for them in exchange for success. The vast majority of clients chose the managed account track, which the defendant presented as a "passive investment" track.