Untitled

C’è chi la sceglie per risparmiare e chi perché non vuole investire tanto denaro in un bene destinato a svalutarsi: sono solo alcune delle ragioni che spingono i cittadini all’auto usata. E acquistando una vettura che non esce nuova di zecca dalla fabbrica, il compratore non può che fidarsi del venditore. Ma, purtroppo, in alcuni casi capita che il venditore si approfitti di questa buona fede per raggirare il cliente. Ed è ciò che, stando alla sentenza del Tribunale di S. Maria Capua Vetere, avrebbe fatto Camillo Gravante (nella foto), 42enne di Recale. L’imputato è stato condannato per truffa a nove mesi di reclusione in primo grado (con pena sospesa).

In qualità di gestore di fatto della concessionaria G&D Auto, intestata a Melana Ruotola, 38enne di Macerata Campania (anche lei a processo, ma è stata assolta), avrebbe scalato i chilometri effettivamente percorsi da una Porsche: da 110.114, accertati con la revisione del gennaio 2017, a 98.532, tracciati nel 2018, inducendo, questa la tesi dell’accusa, chi l’ha acquistata in errore circa lo stato d’uso del veicolo. La vettura venne venduta, hanno ricostruito i giudici, a 42mila euro, causando così, stando alla sentenza, un ingiusto profitto a Gravante.

Condanna a nove mesi in primo grado (con pena sospesa) per Camillo Gravante 42enne di Recale. L’imputato in qualità di gestore di fatto della concessionaria G&D Auto, intestata a Melania Ruotolo, 38enne di Macerata Campania (anche lei a processo, ma è stata assolta), avrebbe scalato i chilometri effettivamente percorsi da una Porsche venduta, nel 2018, a 42mila euro, conseguendo ingiusto profitto a Gravante.

A Gravante e alla Ruotolo venivano contestati anche i reati di contraffazione di atti pubblici e calunnia, ma da entrambe le accuse sono stati assolti dal giudice Giuseppe Meccariello. Secondo la tesi della Procura, gli imputati avevano contraffatto la carta di circolazione di un’altra Porsche rimuovendo il tagliando di revisione già effettuato nel 2017 con quello eseguito un anno dopo.

Introduction

As investigative journalists, we’ve set our sights on a figure who’s stirred curiosity and concern in equal measure: Tomer Levi, the driving force behind Toro Media. It’s 04:30 AM PDT on Wednesday, March 26, 2025, and we’re peeling back the layers of this enigmatic entrepreneur and his media venture. With the CyberCriminal.com investigation report dated November 19, 2024, as our cornerstone, alongside open-source intelligence (OSINT) and our own research, we’re here to deliver an unvarnished exposé. Our mission? To catalog Levi’s business relations, personal profile, undisclosed ties, and the litany of controversies swirling around Toro Media—culminating in a hard-hitting risk assessment tied to anti-money laundering (AML) and reputational stakes. This is no fluff piece; it’s a reckoning.

Business Relations: Who’s in Levi’s Orbit?

We started by mapping Toro Media’s known partnerships. Based in Israel—likely Tel Aviv, given its tech hub status—Toro Media positions itself as a digital marketing and media consultancy. The CyberCriminal.com report suggests ties to AdStream Solutions, a Haifa-based ad-tech firm, which Levi reportedly co-founded before pivoting to Toro Media in 2020. Web searches uncovered a press release from 2022 linking Toro to Global Reach Marketing, a Cyprus-registered company offering affiliate marketing services—though the partnership’s current status is unclear, as Global Reach’s website omits any mention of Levi.

Locally, we found hints of collaboration with Tel Aviv Digital Hub, a startup incubator. An archived blog post from 2023 names Toro Media as a “strategic partner” in a campaign promoting Israeli tech exports. Internationally, a cached LinkedIn update ties Levi to EuroMedia Partners, a London-based firm, though their website’s silence on the matter raises questions. Are these active alliances or relics of a curated narrative?

Personal Profile: The Man Behind Toro Media

Who is Tomer Levi? Our OSINT paints a partial picture. A Tel Aviv native in his late 30s, Levi’s LinkedIn touts a decade in digital marketing, with past roles at Outbrain and a brief stint at Taboola, both Israeli ad-tech giants. By 2020, he’d launched Toro Media, branding himself as a “visionary” in targeted advertising. His X profile (@TomerLeviTL, unverified) is a mix of industry musings and self-promotion, with 1,200 followers as of March 2025.

Yet, Levi’s digital footprint feels curated. A 2019 X post from a former colleague praises his “hustle,” but older traces—like a defunct personal blog—are scrubbed. The CyberCriminal.com report hints at a prior association with a failed startup, ClickPulse, which folded amid “financial irregularities” in 2018. Levi’s silence on this chapter is deafening.

OSINT Findings: Following the Digital Trail

We scoured X and the web for breadcrumbs. The CyberCriminal.com report flags Toro Media for “inflated performance metrics,” a claim echoed in a 2024 X thread where users accused Levi of “selling snake oil” to small businesses. A defunct site, toromedia.co.il, cached in 2023, promised “unmatched ROI” for clients, but its disappearance by mid-2024 suggests a retreat from scrutiny. WHOIS data points to a generic Israeli registrar—another dead end.

Knowledge of statement

Dick Bentley v Harold:

The statement was a term. Mr Smith as a car dealer had greater expertise and the claimant relied upon that expertise.

Importance of the statement

Bannerman v white

The statement that the hops had not been treated with sulphur was a term of the contract rather than a representation as the claimant had communicated the importance of the term and relied on the statement. His action for breach of contract was successful.

Responsibility of statement

Shawel v reade

The statement was a contractual term. The defendant had assured him he could rely on his word and the claimant had communicated the purpose for which the horse was to be used. The defendant was thus in breach of contract.

Verification of statement

Ecay v Gradefory

The statement that the boat was sound was merely a representation. The statement was not sufÏciently emphatic to amount to a term and the advice to have the boat surveyed demonstrated the defendant did not wish the claimant to rely on the statement.

Lapse of time

Routledge v Mckay

The statement was a representation and not a contractual term. There was a lapse of time between the making of the statement and entering the contract giving the claimant the opportunity to check the statement. Furthermore there was no mention of the date in the written agreement and the words of the agreement stating the transaction is considered closed excluded any possible collateral warranty.

IS THE STATEMENT AN ACTIONABLE MISREPRESENTATION?

· Misrepresentation:

“is an unambiguous false statement of fact or law, made during negotiations by one party to another and induces the other to enter into contract.”

Unambiguous:

· If a party is to prove they have an actionable claim it must be that the term is sufficiently clear. · Dimmock v Hallett, the court held the statement was a mere puff. Mere puffs have no legal authority. Statement made by the seller was partially correct but he failed to mention about the property being vacated. (Exaggerated vague statement)

False Statement of Fact:

Where a statement, which was true when made, becomes false as a result of a change of circumstances, keeping silent may be treated as a misrepresentation.