The picture that emerges from the evidence is that in the first stage the defendant managed the trading in the account exclusively, but later Khoury andAsa They were not satisfied with the execution of the accounts after accumulating losses, and as a result, they began to become more involved in the account and even carried out actions themselves. This involvement does not detract from the conclusion that the defendant managed the accounts for a significant period of time.
In the defendant's statement to the RNA, confirmation of this conclusion can be found. The defendant confirms there that at the beginning of the relationship, he "kingfished" the robot and performed the actions in his mindbut later the two raised demands (P/4 p. 164, s. 16 and see also at p.' 167).
- If so, the ample evidence leaves no doubt that the defendant managed the accounts.
- The evidence clearly indicates that the defendant knew that his activity required a license. At the very least, he suspected that a license was needed but closed his eyes. The world of trade and investment is no stranger to the defendant, he presents himself as someone who is knowledgeable in the field. In the green notebook seized during the search of the defendant's home (P/47), he took notes indicating that he was aware of the need to regulate his occupation. Among other things, the defendant made the following comments: "Am I an investment house"; "Portfolio Management License"; "Investment Consulting License"; "It is forbidden to carry out trading operations, if the warranty expires"; "Find out a case management license." The defendant's attempt to explain in his interrogation in the NRA the reason for recording the matter is not at all convincing (P/4, pp. 33 to p. 36). Nor is this consistent with his attempt to present himself to some of his clients as a "provider of software, computing and training services" (P/156, p. 9, para. 4). The defendant sent a message to one - Elisef - in which he wrote: "... If you operate and offer investors to work on computer programming, it is against the law, and anyone who wants to engage in this field in a commercial way must be in a company with a license to manage portfolios..." (P/137, the notice and transcript P/151, P/152; and see P/4, pp. 48-50). Subsequently, the defendant sent two screenshots, one of which was titled "Who are Investment Advisors, Investment Marketers and Portfolio Managers" (P/137, p. 138). This evidence was presented to the defendant during his testimony in court, but his irrelevant answers did not contain a satisfactory explanation (P. 9.2025, p. 453, paras. 14-36; p. 454, paras. 24 ff.; p. 461, paras. 8 ff.). And if that were not enough, in his interrogation the defendant confirmedthat theactivity he carried out was illegal (P/4, p. 54, s. 1 onwards to p. 55; p. 183, s. 11-15).
- We mentioned earlier the defendant's claim that the accuser did not present the agreement signed between the client and Pepperstone in the context of the offense of fraudulent receipt. Even in the context of the present offense, the absence of the agreement does not detract from the conclusions we have reached, which well establish the conclusion that the defendant managed the accounts using the robot.
- This is not the end of the journey. Alongside the existence of a license obligation to engage in management or consulting in investment portfolios, Section 3 of the Consulting Law lists a list of situations in which a license is not required in one of them. What is relevant to the poorof Nano is a collective dispute A(3), which states as follows:
"Investment advice or investment portfolio management for clients whose number does not exceed five during a calendar year, by an individual who is not engaged in investment advice or investment portfolio management within the framework of an authorized corporation or within the framework of a banking corporation"