Supreme Court Increases Punishment of Fraudulent Investment House Owner
Last week, the Supreme Court in Israel increased the punishment of Amir Bramley, the owner of the Rubicon investment house and the Kela fund, who was convicted of defrauding hundreds of investors out of NIS 340 million. The court extended his 10-year prison sentence to 14 years and imposed a fine of NIS 600,000 instead of NIS 400,000.
The increase in punishment comes as a surprise for two reasons. Firstly, appeals courts rarely intervene in judgments and when they do, they do not typically lengthen the sentence. Secondly, the 40% increase in sentence is a dramatic rate that is rarely seen. Judges Yosef Alron, Alex Stein, and Hiyel Kosher explained that the original sentence imposed by Judge Khaled Kabov, who is now the Chief Justice, was too lenient and did not match the severity of Bramley’s crimes. They also noted that even with the increased punishment, it still does not fully reflect the seriousness of his actions.
Comparing the penalties in similar cases reveals a stark difference in punishment. The embezzlement case at the “Bank for Commerce” resulted in a 17-year prison sentence for stealing NIS 254 million, while an investment consultant, Eran Mizrahi, received a 12-year prison sentence for defrauding customers of NIS 58 million. In the Keren Or investor fraud case, Yehiel Tapiro was sentenced to 40 months in prison for fraud in the amount of NIS 80 million and theft of NIS 45 million. Tal Yagerman, who was involved in the Peled-Givoni case, received a 6-year prison sentence for fraud involving tens of millions of shekels.
The judges in Bramley’s case emphasized the severe damage caused by his actions. They highlighted that Bramley not only caused enormous financial harm to investors but also damaged the capital market and eroded public trust. They wanted to send a message to others who seek to exploit their position for personal gain.
Despite Bramley’s arguments claiming he should be convicted of a lesser offense, the Supreme Court judges rejected his claims. They determined that the conviction for theft by an authorized person was appropriate, as Bramley used investors’ funds for personal use in pre-planned moves while hiding his actions from them.
Furthermore, Bramley argued that most of the investors would still have invested even if they knew their money was being transferred to companies related to him. However, the majority of the Supreme Court rejected this claim, stating that there was a clear causal connection between Bramley’s misrepresentations and the investors’ decisions to invest.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision to increase Bramley’s punishment sends a strong message that fraudulent actions in the investment industry will not be tolerated. It also highlights the need to protect investors and maintain public trust in the capital market.