| Central-Lod District Court |
| Civil Case 23921-09-21 Ebenbach v. Bank Leumi Le-Israel in Tax Appeal |
| Before | The Honorable Judge Eli Brand | |
| Plaintiff | Shai-Lee Ebenbach
By Adv. Reuven Bildt and Yehuda Sheffer |
|
|
Against
|
||
| Defendant | Bank Leumi Le-Israel in a Tax Appeal
By Adv. Noam Bar-David and Shir Eyal |
|
Judgment
- Prior to a lawsuit for an injunction instructing the defendant to open a bank account in the plaintiff's name at his private banking branch 626, to which the inheritance funds of her deceased common-law partner in the bank in Singapore would be transferred, after the defendant refused to do so on grounds of reasonable suspicion in accordance with the provisions of the Prohibition of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Laws.
Factual Background
- Below, in summary, are the background details that need to be addressed.
The Respondent and the deceased Mr. Shimon Shachar z"l, who in his lifetime carried ID No. XXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter: "the deceased"), were recognized by the Family Court as common-law spouses, the deceased was about 25 years older than the plaintiff and had no children.
- The deceased owned a store that dealt with the sale of women's clothing (hereinafter: "the store"), in which the plaintiff was apparently not involved, and in addition, the couple ran a strip club in Ramat Gan called the "Stock Exchange Club" (hereinafter: "the Club").
After the death of the deceased, the plaintiff – who continued to manage the club with other members of her family – was convicted of a number of tax offenses in connection with the management of the club, for which she was sentenced to 24 months in prison, which she served and was released after only about a year and a month on administrative release, and the fact of the early release is according to her version that was not backed up by evidence.
In addition, and only after the defendant's evidence presented a judgment given in the Administrative Petition (Tel Aviv Administrative) 66260-11-21 Yelena Elkin v. Israel Police, Yiftach Regional Station (May 2, 2022), in which it was stated that she had been convicted, apparently in a separate proceeding, of pimping the act of prostitution and holding a place for the purpose of prostitution (Exhibit F of the defendant's exhibits), the plaintiff confirmed in her cross-examination the aforesaid and that for this too she served imprisonment – according to her claim – for a period of two weeks (p. 21 of the transcript, lines 8-28). However, she did not attach any evidence to this either.