Sarel: Yes, I know."
- Tal Podim was also asked about this in his interrogation. Although his testimony would have been very evasive, he eventually admitted that since Sirin is a new currency, the flooding of the market with the coin could cause the currency to fall, and that dozens of trading accounts were needed in order to sell all the coins that were in the common digital wallet, which they did not have (minutes of March 19, 2025, p. 45, questions 11-14, p. 46, questions 6-10 and questions 14-18).
- The plaintiffs also did not prove their claim that Rafi wanted to sell only his share in the coins. Appendix 118 to Rafi's affidavit, on which the plaintiffs rely in their claim, does not constitute evidence of this, since it does not constitute any statement or request by Rafi to sell only some of the rings, but rather the opposite is true. The correspondence between Rafi and Sarel indicates that Rafi intended to be sold by all the investors, and not just his share. In his words:
"Rafi - there was a turnover today of almost 30 million, we had to throw everything away, I think... Between 3-3.5 you have to let everything go , brother." (Emphasis added - Y.S.).
- Moreover, even if the plaintiffs had proved that there was a request by Rafi to sell only his share, they would not have been able to prove that this was practical. Tal Podim was asked about this in the re-interrogation and his answer was not unequivocal:
"Q. That's right. They asked you if they wanted to sell $9 million that day, if it was possible or not. My question is - if they wanted to sell a third of the amount, how would it affect the ability to sell?
- It was probably easier because it's less the way it is."
(p. 57, paras. 9-12).
In other words, it appears from his words that it would have been easier to sell a smaller quantity, but he did not unequivocally confirm that this was possible. Apart from this statement, on which the plaintiffs rely, they did not bring any additional evidence that there was a practical feasibility to sell only Rafi's share of the coins.
- In light of the above, the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of proof imposed on them to prove that it was Sarel and Shahar who prevented the sale of the coins at the relevant date, in whole or in part, and did not refute the defendants' claim that this was not even applicable.
- Therefore, the plaintiffs' arguments in this regard should be rejected.
In conclusion
- From the aforesaid, it emerges that the coin claim is nothing more than a baseless claim, which came into existence in order to serve as a counterweight to the loan claim. The evidence for this is that until the demand for the repayment of the loan, the plaintiffs did not raise any request/demand for repayment of funds in relation to their investment in CyberTrade, and moreover, Rafi signed an affidavit as a director of CyberTrade, as part of the voluntary liquidation proceeding, in which he declared that there were no financial claims and/or disputes between the partners.
- In these circumstances, the coin claim, with all its grounds, should be dismissed.
- In their statement of defense, the defendants raised offset claims against the coin claim. Once the claim has been dismissed, there is no need to discuss the claims of offset. However, since the defendants filed a separate claim for these claims in the framework of CA 16633-03-24, they must be discussed and decided.
- CA 16633-03-24
- This lawsuit was filed by Sarel, Shahar and companies under their control: Pool Position, Wizz Star and Cyberlogic against Rafi and Adrim and concerns alleged damages caused to the plaintiffs during the period since the entry in March 2017 of Yaniv and Oren, through Optimotech, as partners in CyberTrade.
- Although most of the claims were already claimed as offset claims in the statement of defense filed by the plaintiffs on February 27, 2022 in the coin claim file, the claim was filed only in March 2024.
- An examination of the statement of claim shows that a large part of the allegations are directed against Yaniv, Oren and Optimotek. For example: the claim that Optimotech delayed the clearing funds, did not pay the consideration for the shares allocated to it, the claim that Yaniv did not fulfill its part of the agreement and finally Cybertrade ceased its activity and took a voluntary liquidation proceeding, the claim that the balance of the investment funds that was in the digital wallet went down the drain and that Yaniv and Oren (together with Rafi) made use of CyberTrade's software and customer database under another website called ZET10.
- Despite this, the plaintiffs did not file a lawsuit against Yaniv, Oren and Optimotek, but preferred to file a lawsuit against Adirim in her capacity as a shareholder and against Rafi in his capacity as an officer of CyberTrade, on a variety of grounds, including: grounds of fraud and theft under the Torts Ordinance, grounds by virtue of the Companies Law (breach of the duty to act in good faith and in a manner acceptable by Adir as a shareholder in Cybertrade in accordance with Section 192 of the Companies Law; breach of fiduciary duty by Rafi in accordance with the provision of Section 254 to the Companies Law; lifting the veil between Adirim and Rafi by virtue of Section 6 of the Companies Law) and grounds by virtue of the Contracts Law.
- The plaintiffs had no satisfactory explanation as to why no lawsuit was filed against Yaniv, Oren and Optimotek, who are the main defendants. Shachar was asked about this and noted:
"A. We didn't sue Yaniv because the person who was in front of us was Rafi..."