And more. Mr. Zidon claimed in his interrogation that "to my recollection, you (the transfer of the Mu'alem hearing place - my addition) were present at the counting ceremony" (p. 1194, question 1), even though Mr. Zidon himself admitted that he was not present at the counting of the money he gave (p. 1197, question 17). When Mr. Sidon was asked where the money was counted, he claimed that it was done in a "side room" (p. 1194, paras. 4-7). Mr. Sidon's version is not reliable in my opinion. Apart from the fact that it is not clear why Mr. Zidon allowed Mr. Moshe Horowitz to count the money that he himself gave together with Mr. Dahari, if indeed the transfer of the place of hearing from Mualem knew that the sums that the plaintiffs were paying were lower than the sums recorded in the contracts, there was no need to go out to a "side room" in the office of the person who moved the place of the Mualem hearing. The counting of the money could have been carried out at the head office of the transfer of a concealed place of hearing, where the contracts were signed. It makes no sense for Mualem to sign the contracts with the plaintiffs in his office, and then go out with them to a side room in his office in order to count the money.
In this context, it should also be noted that the plaintiffs sought to rely on the Goren-Dahari recordings, in order to prove that Mualem knew that the contracts recorded lower sums than the amounts actually paid. According to the claim, in the course of the recordings, Mr. Dahari told the Goren Hearing Venue that the transfer of the meeting venue Mualem could say what amounts were paid (see the quotation in paragraph 79 of the plaintiffs' summaries). However, in his interrogation, Mr. Dahari denied that his words were intended to the fact that when moving the venue of the hearing, Mualem knew that the sums recorded in the contracts were different from the amounts actually paid (ibid., at p. 3052, s. 20 to p. 3053, s. 7). In any event, I do not find it possible to substantiate a determination according to which Mualem knew about it only because of a possible interpretation of the things that were exchanged in the conversation between two parties, of which Mualem was not one of them. It is not enough to transcribe a conversation between two people to prove that the content of one of the speakers' words is true to a third party. In any event, I have already clarified that I am unquestionably faithful to the version of the person who transferred the place of discussion from Mualem, according to which he did not know that the amounts actually paid were different from the sums recorded in the contracts.