Plaintiff 4 - Transfer of Ariel Cohen Hearing Place
In his affidavit, he claimed that in the summer of 2011, a group of friends, which included Elia Shimoni, Benya Zidon, Moshe Horowitz and Avishai Junger, the possibility of purchasing a plot of agricultural land in the city of Ashkelon for the purpose of investment was raised. Accordingly, on 10 August 2011, the members met with Mr. Dahari in his office in Ashkelon. This meeting was held following previous conversations between Mr. Dahari and Mr. Elia Shimoni and Mr. Banya Zidon, the "representatives of the group" (paragraph 5 of the affidavit), in which they were told that the agricultural land was intended to be redesignated for residential use and were presented with the documents signed by the Deputy Mayor of Ashkelon, Mr. Shimon Cohen. Mr. Dahari claimed that these documents were given to him by the seller of the land, whose identity the plaintiffs did not know at the time. During his interrogation, Cohen was asked how the documents signed by the deputy mayor did not raise a question mark in him, taking into account the fact that the document states that the land has already undergone rezoning procedures from agriculture to urban needs. On the face of it, insofar as the transfer of the venue of the hearing was of the opinion that Cohen was purchasing agricultural land (p. 346, paras. 17-18), the content of the document testifies that the designation of the land at the time of its purchase was for municipal purposes, the nature of which is in any case unclear. To this, Cohen replied, "No, I didn't delve too deep..." (p. 346, s. 24). Given that he was subscribed and finished with the transfer of the venue of the Cohen hearing to sign the contract in any event, his answer was in accordance with his manner of conduct (see further: paragraphs 4.21-4.20 of the summaries of defendant 2).
Cohen further claimed that Mr. Dahari had informed them in advance that the seller was demanding that the entire amount be paid in cash only, and at the time of signing the contracts, Mr. Dahari added that the amount that would be recorded in the contracts would be lower than the amount actually paid. He also claimed that at no stage were the plaintiffs told that the administration had the right to return the land in the event of a change of designation. Plaintiffs 3-7 were indeed represented by a concealed meeting venue, but the meeting lasted only a few minutes, during which they did not receive any explanation and were not presented with the agreement between the manager and defendant 4. In contrast to Mr. Hurwitz's claim in his interrogation, Cohen claimed that he had read the contract while staying in the office of the concealed venue transferor, "and the contract seemed reasonable to me" (paragraph 13 of the affidavit). According to him, he is a lawyer by profession but his field of practice is torts, "and I have no idea about the field of real estate in general and in matters of administrative land and/or agricultural land in particular, so I did not know that there was another agreement between Alon Goren and the manager, and I certainly did not know about clause 15..." (ibid., ibid.).