As stated, these words are said more than necessary, and even if it is proven that this is not a theoretical claim, the conclusion will not change.
- The innocent and evasive answers that the plaintiff gave to the defendant's inquiries with various questions are capable of intensifying the suspicion even more, since the expectation from someone who raises a well-founded suspicion with the bank and wishes to remove it from himself is to transfer any relevant information possible and not to conceal it or cause the bank to remove it from it with an effort.
Thus, with regard to the answer to the defendant's question, "In light of negative publications about Shai-Lee in the media, we would appreciate the details of her legal status", to which the plaintiff replied through the attorney for the following laconic and naïve answer – "There is no criminal legal proceeding against Shai-Lee" (an email message from the defendant and a letter from the plaintiff's attorney, both dated July 6, 2021, are shown 10 of the plaintiff's exhibits), even though the defendant explicitly referred to publications relating to previous convictions and prison sentences served by the plaintiff that were not answered or addressed by her.
All the more so that we are aware that even after this letter was sent, the court accepted the police's claim that the plaintiff continues to run a strip club under the guise of her sister-in-law, while in relation to the management of the club without a business license, a criminal proceeding was conducted and it has a closure order as detailed in Administrative Petition 66260-11-21 (paragraph 7).
- A captivating argument, prima facie, raised by the plaintiff was that the fact that she settled her debts to the Tax Authority was sufficient to "legalize" the money in the bank account in Singapore, since the only offense for which there is suspicion in relation to this sum is, perhaps, a tax offense that at the relevant times was not considered a source offense for which proceedings are being taken under the Prohibition of Money Laundering Law.
The plaintiff further argued that once the tax was paid for this amount, there was no justification for leaving it in Singapore, and the only beneficiary of this would be the Singaporean branch, which continued to hold them without anyone being able to touch them.