You're going to get me into trouble.
Sarel - I don't know anything. Just calm Rafi down.
Yaniv - Sarel, I trust you. I don't screw a friend who does me a favor..."
- As appears from the correspondence attached to Sarel's affidavit (Appendices 32-36), in the following days, Yaniv gave Sarel clear instructions on when to sell and at what rate to sell the coins, when only on February 2, 2018, Rafi reported that Yaniv had approved the sale (Appendix 40 to Sarel's affidavit).
- Yaniv was asked about this correspondence during his interrogation and it was clear that he avoided giving answers. He relied on the argument that these were not full correspondences; Because he does not remember or it is impossible to know that these are indeed correspondence from him. This is despite the fact that in most of the above appendices it can be seen that the correspondence is with Yaniv.
- In his first affidavit, on the other hand, Yaniv made no claim regarding the authenticity of the notices and only stated that these statements were in the framework of expressing an opinion as a partner in the investment (paragraph 10 of the affidavit), an argument that is inconsistent with the spirit of the correspondence presented.
- Rafi expressed his displeasure with Yaniv's conduct in real time. This is what he wrote to Sarel on January 26, 2018 (Appendix 38 to Sarel's affidavit):
"Rafi - I think he's confused about it.
We are not market makers of the coin we bought to dismantle.
Not to get instructions.
The last time I did a tour like this with him.
I don't like this charlatanism."
- These correspondences and other correspondence (see Appendices 39 and 40 to Sarel's affidavit) support the defendants' claim that, contrary to what Yaniv claimed in his affidavit, Yaniv had the authority and the decision. He gave the instructions when to sell and to what extent to sell, and in real time Rafi was aware and agreed to this.
- The defendants claimed that they acted in accordance with Yaniv's instructions since he was personally a guarantor of the loss, and they feared that if they acted contrary to his instructions, they would be exposed to a claim of breach of the investment agreement and the expiration of the guarantee. The parties do not dispute that Yaniv was a guarantor of the loss. The dispute is with respect to the scope of the guarantee. While Sarel and Shahar claimed that Yaniv had committed to reimburse them in full, Yaniv and Rafi claimed that the undertaking was to return only 25% of the loss. I do not see the need to rule on this dispute, because even if the undertaking is for a partial restitution of the loss, this does not refute Sarel and Shahar's version regarding the fear of losing this undertaking, the financial significance of which is very significant.
- This is especially so in light of the fact that Rafi did not provide in his testimony any other satisfactory explanation for Sarel's refusal to sell the coins as early as January 22, 2018 (transcript of March 19, 2025, p. 101, question 20 onwards, and p. 102, questions 1-8), since Sarel himself is invested and he also had an interest in profit.
- Rafi was also unable to explain why he did not raise allegations against Sarel and Shahar in real time that they allegedly prevented him from selling the coins (pp. 106, paras. 11-24), and why he continued to invest with them after according to him, they caused him damage of about $1.2 million (pp. 99-100).
- Moreover, the plaintiffs were unable to deal with the defendants' claim that it was not feasible to sell the coins at an alleged value of $9 million in one day, in view of the characteristics of the digital currency market. As claimed, in order to sell all the Sirin coins that were in the shared digital wallet, dozens of different trading accounts were required, which did not exist. In addition, since the trading volumes of the Sirin coin were low at the relevant time, the overflow of the coin's supply would have caused the currency to fall, or would not have allowed it to be sold at all.
- This was confirmed in real time by Tal Podim, a Cybertrade employee who carried out the currency trade, who stated to Sarel on January 22, 2018 (Appendix 41 to Sarel's affidavit):
"Tal: It's hard to throw $9 million at the level of turnover that exists now