And later on in Q. 20-23:
"... The answer is that CyberLogic was abandoned during those years and was something we only took care of in maintenance. I was busy all day, from morning to night, and sometimes in the middle of the night, on cybertrade."
- The plaintiffs relied on the affidavits of Yehuda Ziner, an employee of Cybertrade, and Tal Podim.
- Yehuda Ziner began working at Cybertrade, he claims, in March 2017. His testimony indicated that he began working only in February 2018 (transcript of March 19, 2025, p. 21, paras. 6-7). Cybertrade's activity ended in July 2018. Therefore, his testimony is relevant only to this period and not to the entire period of Cybertrade's activity, which began in 2014. In addition, when he was asked in his interrogation about what was stated in paragraph 7 of his affidavit, where he noted that Sarel and Shahar had invested most of their time on the dating sites, he replied in general, without any detail and admitted that he did not have their diary (pp. 21-22). This testimony, which is general and vague, does not prove the claim that Sarel and Shahar invested all or most of their time in their other businesses. Certainly, not in relation to the long period in which this witness had nothing to do with Cybertrade.
- Tal Podim, who began working at Cybertrade in April 2016, claimed in his affidavit that when CyberTrade's activity declined in terms of the scope of activity, Sarel and Shahar's involvement in the activity of dating sites increased. Hence, according to him, this was also at the end of CyberTrade's period of activity (paragraph 16 of his affidavit).
- In other words, while the amount of rent and maintenance claimed relates to the period beginning in 2015, the testimonies relied upon by the plaintiffs relate to a limited and limited period, close to the closure of CyberTrade's activity, and even they do not support the claim that Sarel and Shahar devoted all their time to other activities.
- In light of the above, this argument should be rejected.
The Claim of Payment to Employees
- As part of their claim that the Cybertrade offices were used to promote the private businesses of Sarel and Shahar, the plaintiffs claimed that CyberTrade employees worked for CyberLogic. Therefore, they claimed the sum of ILS 454,737 for their share of half of the salary paid to CyberTrade employees.
- Eli Maor (hereinafter: "Eli"), CyberTrade's marketing manager since April 2016, denied this claim in his affidavit. According to him, there was no mixing between cybertrade and cyberlogic affairs, both in terms of business activity, in terms of technology, and in terms of manpower. Cybertrade employees did not work for CyberLogic and/or for Sarel and Shahar, but were employed and operated only within the framework of CyberTrade, which operates in a different technological field than CyberLogic (paragraph 7 of its affidavit).
- Sarel and Shahar also made similar claims in their affidavits (paragraphs 163 and 158 of the affidavit, respectively).
- This claim was not contradicted by the plaintiffs.
- In his cross-examination, Eli was asked about an employee named Diana, who was allegedly working at Cybertrade and CyberLogic at the same time, and he replied:
"A. No, she worked at CyberLogic. All of her work was in CyberLogic. When she sat on her feet and didn't have clients to take care of, so Sarel asked her if I could help if I needed anything, and she helped."