As it appears from the evidence, these customers were in the "managed account" track (and this is indeed confirmed by the defendant himself in the framework of P/51). At a certain stage of the relationship between these customers and the defendant, it is possible to identify increasing involvement in the account, due to the losses accumulated by the account. However, this involvement, even if it existed, does not detract from the conclusion that the defendant had discretion in executing the transactions. I will elaborate.
Khoury testified that according to the agreement between him and the defendant, his job was to deposit the money in the account, while the robot was supposed to be responsible for everything - opening and closing transactions (P. 13.2.2023, p. 141, para. 22). In addition, the defendant was responsible for the operation of the robot, monitoring its activity, and correcting defects (P. 13.2.2023, p. 156, paras. 12-20; p. 156, paras. 29-33). Assa also described a similar relationship pattern; He noted that the defendant defined the robot and was responsible for its activity, that in the first stage the defendant managed the account and all he was required to do was report to it (March 8, 2023, p. 305, paras. 19-36; p. 326, s. 7-17; p. 313, s. 36; p. 314, s. 1-16; p. 363, s. 30-31; p. 364, s. 14). Assa also clarified in his testimony that the defendant had the information and knowledge regarding the robot (P/22.2023, p. 363, paras. 30-31; p. 364, para. 14) - and this is supported by additional evidence (P/107, p. 134). Moreover, in the first stage, Khoury andAsa were not even equipped with a password that would allow them to perform actions in the account, but only to view it, and only at a later stage were they given access to perform actions in the account (Khoury - P. 13.2.2023, p. 164, paras. 13-20; p. 178, s. 29 ff.; p. 179, s. 31 ff.; ASA - March 8, 2023, p. 326, paras. 4-6; p. 327, paras. 20-26). The format of the relationship between the parties can be learned from P/107 (see the following pages - 89, 94, 100, 117, 136, 146, 153, 166, 322). It can therefore be concluded that the account was managed by the defendant, but Khoury and Issa were closely monitoring the account and were even involved in what was happening. However, the attempts of the two to make decisions on their own were not welcomed by the defendant as he immediately saw it.