Kovacs. The witness stated that he had no connection to the robot, that the robot traded itself, and that the goal was that it would not be involved (P. 26.2.2023, p. 215, paras. 8-20). Indeed, the witness noted during his testimony that the defendant had spoken to him about the robot's settings and that he had approved them (February 26, 2023, p. 220, s. 33 ff.; p. 221, s. 1), but later in the testimony he clarified that he was not involved in the setup process and that the definitions were presented to him and he approved them (P. 26.2.2023, p. 226, s. 25 to p. 227, s. 14). The witness further emphasized that he did not have knowledge of the definition of the robot and that he "flowed" with the process because he relied on the defendant (February 26, 2023, p. 231, paras. 15-24).
Harel. The witness's testimony indicates that the person who programmed the robot was the defendant, because the witness was not involved and the defendant had discretion in the framework of programming the robot (February 26, 2023, p. 239, paras. 19-35; p. 240, paras. 1-36).
Yechiel. The witness's testimony indicates that both he and the defendant had access to the account, but the person who operated the robot and traded through it was the defendant; It also emerges from the testimony that the witness's role is limited to depositing the sum and withdrawing the profits (February 26, 2023, p. 356, paras. 13-34; p. 365, paras. 34-38).
Buskila. The witness stated in his testimony that he had no access to the robot or the ability to operate it, and only the defendant could have done so (P. 26.2.2023, p. 264, s. 1). The witness noted that according to the agreement between the two, it was the defendant who programmed the robot and the witness himself had no connection to the programming (February 26, 2023, p. 270, paras. 27-34; p. 265, paras. 1-17; p. 268, paras. 28-33). Additional indications that support the witness's statements arise from the rest of the evidence. In P/76, pp. 35-37 - there is evidence that the defendant "makespeg" the robot again following another interruption by Buskila. In P/76, pp. 54-55, Buskila writes to the defendant: "I understand now that it is not so simple in deciding to close a deal. Is this something I need to learn now or is it your job to deal with it if I let you know that it is less than 100%?"; The defendant replies: "Yes. This is something you need to learn. Your account with your money. I'm just running the system for you." The defendant continues, "Right now I'm stopping the issue of the robot that trades in gold. Due to the tension in the Gulf, the price of gold jumped crazy and caused losses" (P/76, p. 83).