This is the place to address an argument that the plaintiff has repeatedly raised, namely that she has already paid her debt to the company for her convictions, and it is not possible that her past will be a constant source of trouble.
Appropriate for this, the words written by the Honorable Judge Yardena Seroussi in Opening Motion (Tel Aviv District) 43782-08-20 Roy Hayoun v. Bank Leumi Le-Israel in a Tax Appeal (July 20, 2021), paragraph 46, as follows:
"It should be emphasized in this context that the reference to the applicant's past does not mean that he is being held as a criminal on a permanent basis. The applicant has paid his debt to the company, and he should not be used against him when considering all the circumstances of the matter. However, in the accumulation of the initial indications and in light of the Respondent's status, there is no impediment to the Respondent expressing an initial concern about receiving funds from an unknown source into the Applicant's account. The applicant will then have to explain the source of the funds and prove their legitimacy. If the applicant proves the source of the funds and their "validity", there is no longer room to relate to the past, but if he refrains from doing so, there will be no choice but to take into account all the relevant circumstances for the transfer, i.e., it will be possible to also take into account the applicant's past as a certain indication that increases the respondent's fear. However, to the extent that this concern is removed, his past should no longer be taken into account."
As stated, the plaintiff did not remove the concern in any way.
Specifically, above I pointed out the reasons for which it is sufficient to dismiss the lawsuit and to determine that the defendant's decision was reasonable, and only later and in addition to this, did the fact of the plaintiff's convictions, their nature and the concealment of the information in relation to them even after they arose and she was asked about it, came as a "red flag" and as an additional layer to the aforementioned concerns.
- As long as the connection of the funds and the company to the deceased has not been proven, it is not at all clear that this sum does indeed belong to him and is due to the plaintiff by virtue of his inheritance order, and in this matter we live only from her mouth without the slightest hint of evidence supported.
The very claim that the Singapore branch is willing to transfer the money to Israel is not supported by any evidence, and it is possible that we are dealing with a purely theoretical lawsuit.