In the next stage, after Dahari Peres memorized to potential buyers the identities of other well-known persons who had already purchased plots of land from defendant 4 in the area, and even presented them with the letters of the deputy mayor, many were persuaded, including the plaintiffs, to purchase various plots of land. While they were enthusiastic about the apparent transactions, it was made clear to the plaintiffs that they must have a large amount of cash in order to make the payment for the plots of land (testimony of Mr. Dahari, at p. 2696, paras. 10-19; ibid., pp. 2859, paras. 17-22). Goren argued that the plaintiffs themselves "chose, according to them, to conduct transactions in cash" (paragraph 6 of the opening chapter of the summaries of defendants 1 and 4). This argument has no substance and it would be better if it had not been argued. The demand to carry out the transactions in cash was the result of the unequivocal request of the transfer of the Goren hearing place. The fact that all the transactions were conducted in this way, including by plaintiffs 1-2 who did not know plaintiffs 3-7, as well as by Mr. Buchnik and others, shows that the plaintiffs did not "choose" to make the transactions in cash, but rather did so on demand. There is no logic in assuming that buyers will stock up on significant sums of money in cash and walk around the streets of a city until they reach the office of a concealed hearing, while taking the risk that the money will be lost or stolen, where they have the option of making a simple bank transfer or obtaining a bank check.
In any event, as requested, they did so: the plaintiffs were equipped with a substantial amount of cash in exchange for obtaining a bank check or making an orderly bank transfer. Afterwards, on the day that the contracts were to be signed, Mr. Dahari informed the plaintiffs that according to the demand of the attorney to move the place of the Goren hearing, the contracts would record lower sums than those they would actually pay (Mr. Dahari denied this in his interrogation, but his words are not true, since the plaintiffs testified that Mr. Dahari and the transfer of the place of the hearing from Mu'alem raised this demand to them at the time, and Mr. Dahari was unable to explain where this demand arose unless he himself raised it - p. 3087 Q. 2 to p. 3088 S. 24). This demand was not communicated to the plaintiffs in advance, apparently because Goren assumed that on the day the contracts were signed, when they were ready to sign and after they had already acquired a large sum of money, the plaintiffs would not refrain from signing the contracts only because of this, including because of the fact that false reports would be made to the tax authorities (see the testimony of Mrs. Wiszyovsky at p. 1097, paras. 20-21; testimony of Mr. Moshe Horowitz, at p. 469, paras. 13-14; testimonyMoving the venue of the Cohen hearing, at p. 318, paras. 32-34; testimony of the plaintiffs, moving the venue of the Junger hearing. at p. 147, paras. 22-33; Testimony of Mr. Zidon, at p. 1253, s. 23; Testimony of Mrs. Shimoni Cohen, at p. 1346, paras. 21-26; Testimony of Mr. Elia Shimoni, at p. 1568, paras. 1-4). When the contracts were signed, the funds of all plaintiffs 3-7 were put in one bag and the entire money was transferred to the Goren Hearing Place, which was waiting on the other side of the street, while most of the buyers were still not allowed to access it.