Q: Why did he decline the business offer?
A: Because he says he doesn't, he doesn't do business with friends, he doesn't, he doesn't, he didn't like to spoil the relationship so much because of such small sums as far as he was concerned.
Q: Have you agreed on any terms for the loan?
A: The truth is that I offered him to pay collateral if he needed to, because as far as I was concerned, it was a very significant sum after all. He said there was no need because the only security I could give him was my apartment, I was routine, so he said what do you think I'm going to get you out of the house, so what do I need?
Q: Did he ask you for interest on the loan?
A: No.
Q: You have agreed on a date for the repayment of the loan, for the repayment of the loan.
A: Yes. I told him that I would return the money within two years, maybe two and a half years, and I couldn't pay it back.
Q: Have you made an agreement?
A: No.
Q: And the loan, as you said, was given in 2006, was it repaid?
A: No.
- Did Abraham ever approach you and ask for a shutdown?
A: Never. He never approached me even though he had opportunities, he, I was at his children's events, I was at his daughters' weddings, I was at his son's bar mitzvah. He never approached me (Prov. p. 1680, s. 5).
Thus, the defendant lent $200,000 to a friend from his childhood (even though he did not have a significant relationship with him in the years immediately following his loan request), without an agreement, without his interest in a partnership, and while refusing the witness's offer to mortgage his apartment as security for the loan. Moreover, it was proven that the defendant never demanded the repayment of the loan, despite the fact that almost a decade had passed since the date on which it was supposed to be repaid. The fact that over the years the defense has only succeeded in locating a bank confirmation of the transfer of half of the sum does not impair the testimony of the witness who left a reliable impression.
- The data that have been proven in relation to the defendant's social and economic conduct can therefore be seen as supporting the defense's thesis, but it cannot be said that this conduct negates the existence of a purpose Extra which was the basis for the transfer of money.