The Rehovot Magistrate's Court sentenced Sharon Golan to 52 months in prison, who was convicted of 24 charges including offenses of receiving something by fraud under aggravated circumstances, forging a document with the intent to receive something under aggravated circumstances, impersonating another person, threats, and offenses under the Insolvency Law.
The defendant committed the offenses against 20 complainants, amounting to approximately 155,000 NIS.
According to the amended indictment, filed by Attorney Maya Trigger of the Central District Attorney's Office (Criminal), and to which the defendant admitted as part of a plea bargain, until the defendant's arrest, the defendant falsely presented himself as a mystic and Kabbalist, with expertise in "returning love.".
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
As part of the misrepresentation, the defendant created various websites on his own or through others where he advertised his services, presenting himself under various pseudonyms, a different age than his actual age, and claiming to have over 20 years of experience in lovemaking and mysticism.
As part of the misrepresentation, the defendant published fake articles on the Internet and on some sites described his working methods using mystical and Kabbalistic tools and claimed that he uses, among other things, "safe magic" and "white magic", as well as strong, high-quality materials that he imports from abroad.
Following the misrepresentation, women approached him, telling him about their separation from their partners and the difficulties they encountered as a result.
In some cases, the defendant instructed the complainants to send him personal details and photos of themselves and their ex-partners in order to conduct an "energetic compatibility" test between them and the couple.
Later, he falsely confirmed that there was an energetic compatibility and pledged to return their unrequited love in exchange for a payment of thousands of NIS. If he failed, the defendant pledged to return the full payment plus compensation for emotional distress.
In accordance with the defendant's instructions, the complainants transferred the payment in various ways. In some cases, the complainants asked the defendant to return the payment, in light of the fact that his promise to return their unrequited love was not fulfilled.
The defendant complied with the request, but in practice did not return the funds and claimed that these funds were returned in various ways. In some cases, when the complainants expressed their fear that he was defrauding them and asked him to stop using their bank account (which they opened after the defendant's request), the defendant threatened to place a curse on them that would harm their health and threatened to reveal their contact with him to their partners.
In none of the cases did the defendant return the money to the complainants.
Judge Sabahat-Haimovitz ruled: "...as for the circumstances of the commission of the offense, the defendant, through various false publications, created a false representation to the complainants that he was able to help them in their distress and bring back to their bosom the spouse who had left them. The defendant demanded money in exchange for returning the love to the complainants and, in most cases, with a commitment that if he failed, he would return the money he had taken to them, and even with the addition of compensation for emotional distress.".
""The defendant fraudulently extracted additional funds from the complainants, and some of them even served as 'account managers' for him, through whose bank accounts he collected the payments he received from some of the complainants.... When some of the complainants discovered the fraud and asked to get their money back, the defendant chose to threaten them in various ways, in order to prevent them from acting against him.
""The defendant took advantage of the complainants' dire distress to extract money from them and to have them help him obtain money from others, during a period in which he was under a summons order, reporting that he had no income, was homeless and lived on minimal means of subsistence... The acts were carried out over a period of approximately 10 months, harmed 20 complainants, and significant sums of money, 140,000 NIS and another 15,000 NIS in purchases made by the defendant on the credit cards of some of the complainants.".
The plea agreement between the parties did not include an agreement on the matter of punishment.
In addition to actual imprisonment, the court also sentenced the defendant to probation, a fine, and compensation for the complainants.
