As for defendant 2, Mualem's place of hearing was transferred, Mr. Attias and Ms. Vyshovsky admitted that they had never met him, and in any case that he did not represent them in the purchase of the lands as aforesaid.
Plaintiffs' Arguments 3-7
During the summer of 2011, contact was made between the group of plaintiffs 3-7 and the transfer of the Goren hearing place through Mr. Dahari. In early conversations between some of the plaintiffs and Mr. Dahari, the latter claimed that there was a chance that within a few years the agricultural land would change its designation for construction and its value would increase substantially. Some of the plaintiffs (it was not clarified who exactly) came to Mr. Dahari's office in Ashkelon. After negotiations between the parties, it was agreed that ILS 87,500 would be paid for each 300 square meter unit of land. Some of the plaintiffs toured the land and selected plots in Blocks 364 and 368 that they understood to have "a better chance of thawing" (paragraph 7 of the lawsuit). Prior to the signing of the contracts on August 10, 2011, Mr. Dahari told the plaintiffs, to their surprise, that the contracts would record a lower sum than what would actually be paid, "due to tax considerations of the seller" (ibid., section 8). Notwithstanding the aforesaid, and even though the reports to the tax authorities would be false, it was claimed that "the plaintiffs were interested in a transaction that seemed good to them (with good chances of compromise)" (ibid., section 9).
The plaintiffs agreed to Mr. Dahari's suggestion that the transfer of Mualem's hearing place would be used by their counsel for the purpose of purchasing the plots of land, since his office is located nearby and taking into account that they have been working together for many years. According to Mr. Dahari's instructions, plaintiffs 3-6 brought with them the entire consideration in cash for the signing of the contracts in August 2011, and handed it over to Mr. Dahari, and this came out after the contracts were signed to the transfer of the Goren hearing venue, which was some distance away. According to Mr. Dahari's order, the plaintiffs were not allowed to approach the transfer of the Goren hearing place and remained "at an observation post", while watching from a distance Mr. Dahari hand over the envelope with the money for the transfer of the Goren hearing place (ibid., paragraph 11). It should be noted that in the reply the plaintiffs changed their version of the matter and claimed that Mr. Dahari and Mr. Elia Shimoni, the spouse of plaintiff 7, went out together on foot in the direction of the Goren Hearing Place, and Mr. Shimoni handed over the bag with the money envelopes of all the plaintiffs to the Goren Hearing Place, in the presence of Mr. Dahari (paragraph 69 of the reply). It was claimed that Mr. Elia Shimoni "was, in a certain sense, a representative of the group" (ibid., paragraph 71), even though his wife, plaintiff 7, did not sign a contract on that day.