On September 26, 2011, Orit sent an email to Mr. Yigal Asraf (the banker handling the defendant's Swiss bank account) and asked him to transfer $400,000 to Ben-Eliezer's account. The loan agreement was attached to the email, signed only by Ben-Eliezer (email P/91; the agreement attached to the email is identical to the copy - P/88). There is no dispute that on that day the money was transferred from the defendant's bank account to Ben-Eliezer's account.
In the evidence there are two "final" copies of the loan agreement. The copy P/88 of September 25, 2011 bears only Ben-Eliezer's signature, while the copy P/89 from that day bears the signatures of Ben-Eliezer and the defendant. The defendant explained in his testimony in court that he apparently signed this copy only after he returned from abroad on September 28, 2011, and at the request of Orit (Entry and Exit Output - P/120).
- The parties disagreed on the question of whether the defendant was involved in the details of the agreement, or whether the various data included in it (including the dates of payment and the property that was determined to be recorded as a condition for the transfer of the money) came from Ben-Eliezer.
I have examined the versions of Vaknin, Orit and the defendant, and I am of the opinion that against the background of Ben-Eliezer's death and the court's inability to rely on his version, it is difficult to determine, with the required level of certainty, who is the concrete entity that "fed" the contract with the various data.
At the same time, I do not believe that there is significant weight in deciding the specific dispute that has been detailed, and I will explain:
The bottom line is, even if a few days late, the defendant signed a loan agreement that does not reflect reality. Thus, the money was transferred without a warning note being recorded, which, according to clause 2.2 of the agreement, constituted a condition for its transfer; Thus, and contrary to the declared purpose of the agreement, which described a loan for the purchase of a plot in Nes Ziona, it turned out that the same plot was purchased on the date the agreement was drawn up and signed (P/124).