The evidence shows the following picture, regarding the cumulative amount invested by the clients:
Khoury stated in his testimony that he had invested $60,000 (February 13, 2023, p. 140, s. 21; p. 166, s. 8; and see P/58-P/62), but after his memory was refreshed, he noted the sum of $80,000. However, the witness did not give an explanation for this discrepancy, and it is also reasonable to assume that a losing person will remember well what the investment and the loss are, especially when it is high. Khoury's testimony indicates that he lost $30,000 (February 13, 2023, pp. 140-141; p. 169). Kehat invested US$2,000 in two accounts and lost the entire amount within two months, with the exception of US$519 that he withdrew from the accounts (Feb. 26, 2023, p. 190; p. 207, s. 35). It also emerges that Kehat paid for the robots and agreed with the defendant 50% of the profit (P. 26.2.2023, p. 203, paras. 22-33; P/97). Kovacs testified that he invested US$1,000 and lost the entire amount within two months (February 26, 2023, pp. 210-211). Harel - invested US$1,000 and lost the amount within three weeks (F. 26.2.2023, pp. 235, 246-247). Buskila - invested US$11,000 and lost the entire amount (P. 26.2.2023, pp. 264-265; p. 280; and see P/80). Although during the testimony there was doubt as to the amount of US$5,000, but deceased/80, which is a deposit document from Pepperston, indicates that the amount deposited is US$11,000. Buskila's testimony also indicates that he paid the defendant $100 for two months; and that at first Buskila was on the path of renting the robot, and later he moved to an account in which the defendant shared the profits (February 26, 2023, p. 271, paras. 28-36; p. 27, para. 18). Buchnik - invested US$1,000 but did not profit or lose (P. 26.2.2023, p. 284). Asa testified that he invested $21,000 and lost approximately $15,000 (March 8, 2023, p. 299). Yechiel - invested between 8,000-10,000 US dollars and lost the entire amount (P. 22.6.2023, p. 354, p. 371). Therefore, the total investments of the clients (at the low threshold and excluding Yoel Cohen's investment that was not proven) - approximately US$105,000.
- I reject the defendant's claim that he acted in accordance with "marketing consulting." Beyond the fact that the claim was not specified, the marketing advice received by the defendant cannot exempt him from criminal liability. Insofar as the claim is directed at a connection between him and Yair Asulin (about whom the documentation is found in Exhibit 136), it can be seen that the defendant was very involved in the content that was presented to the public at the end of the day.
- Finally, the defendant claimed that the prosecution did not present as evidence the full agreement between the dealer and the arena. Indeed, the accuser did not present documents from the scene, including the agreement between the client and Pepperstone. In the indictment, representatives of Pepperstone were mentioned as part of the prosecution witnesses, but the accuser chose to give up their testimony, according to her, due to their refusal to testify (see the transcript of the hearing of August 12, 2025, p. 5, para. 16). On the basis of the claim that the agreement between the clients and the scene was not attached, the defendant believes that there is a lack of evidence that does not allow him to be convicted.
In case law, it has been held more than once that the absence of evidence stemming from the failures of the investigating authorities will indeed be attributed to the prosecution's duty when the question of whether it has lifted the burden of proof imposed on it is discussed, but it cannot be said that investigative failures will necessarily lead to the acquittal of the accused. The effect of the omission depends on the special circumstances of the matter at hand, and in particular on the question of whether it is such a serious omission that there is concern that the defendant's defense was deprived in such a way that it was difficult to deal with the incriminating evidence (Criminal Appeal 1977/05 Exile v. State of Israel (November 2, 2006) and the references appearing therein; Criminal Appeal 1464/21 Kapustin v. State of Israel (September 11, 2022)). More importantly, in criminal law, the question before the court is not whether it was possible and appropriate to take these or other additional investigative steps, unless there is sufficient evidence to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt (Criminal Appeal 5741/98 Ali v. State of Israel (June 10, 1999)).