Moreover. Moving the venue of the hearing Cohen admitted that before the signing of the contract he had not heard about the transfer of the venue of the Goren hearing, and in any case, he did not meet him. In these circumstances, it would have been expected that after the transfer of the venue of the Cohen hearing, the identity of the seller would be clarified and examined why they were prohibited from meeting with the owner of the rights in the seller. Cohen even stated that "the demand not to record the full amount in the contract bothered me very much at the time, to say the least", and that "the additional demand to make payment for the transaction in cash also seemed puzzling to me", but since it was made clear to him and his friends that this was a condition without which the seller was not concerned (paragraph 10 of his affidavit), he was "forced" to sign the contract in accordance with the seller's demands. It therefore emerges that despite being a lawyer, who is well aware of the implications derived from false reports to the tax authorities and signing a contract that does not reflect reality, Cohen-Bichar was moved to sign the contract "since we wanted to execute the transaction because we believed in its economic feasibility" (paragraph 11 of his affidavit). Even the fact that the cash payment was extremely unusual, and that "I remember that the whole bank was on its feet, asking why I needed the cash, and there was an event there. I remember this day well" (p. 325 of Prov. S. 3-4), after the transfer of the venue of the hearing Cohen was not bothered by this and signed the contract (with regard to the contradictory versions raised by the transfer of the venue of the Cohen hearing as to the manner of conduct of the parties, including with regard to the enumeration of the funds, see further paragraphs 59-61 of the summaries of defendants 1 and 4).
Moving the venue of the hearing, Cohen himself concluded that all the representations that served as the basis for his signing of the contract were based on "a message that he gave to the members who gave it to me" (p. 447, question 27), as well as on the fact that his friends "spoke with the member of Knesset" (p. 447, question 6). He later claimed that he also relied on what was said at the time of the signing of the agreement on August 10, 2011 (p. 448, paras. 5-7). In other words, after the transfer of the venue of the hearing, Cohen decided to sign the contract due to rumored testimony originating from his friends, who in turn heard the matter from Mr. Dahari or from a conversation with a member of Knesset. It is difficult to reconcile his claim that he also relied on the things that were exchanged on August 10, 2011, when he arrived there already equipped with the sum of money and his purpose was to sign the contract, even though he had not seen its wording beforehand.