By the nature of the matter and because of their logic, you have learned from the rule of no, and since we are dealing with a request to open a new account, the reasons required for the purpose of refusal are more weighty than if it were a case of closing or blocking an active account, and this reason also supports the dismissal of the claim, as opposed to various judgments referred to by the plaintiff dealing with the closure or blocking of an active account, and I do not find it necessary to list them one by one.
Pre-Signature Note
- Before signing and after the focused and dry legal hearing, I would like to make one last comment from the bottom of my heart – both in his letter to the defendant dated July 5, 2021 (in the penultimate trial), in the statement of claim (paragraph 52) and in the affidavit of the main witness (paragraphs 43 and 64), the plaintiff's counsel made a comparison between her alleged situation (lack of documents and information, according to her claim that it was not her fault) and the situation of Holocaust survivors who, after being saved from the inferno, were asked by banks around the world with formalistic rigidity to produce documents that were naturally lost in order to be rehabilitated and claimed that she should not be asked for information that was not in her possession, just as there was no reason to demand it from them.
There should be a strong reservation about this inappropriate comparison, to say the least, a minimalist one.
There is no need to clarify that I wish the plaintiff longevity and peace and that she will not know even a tiny bit of what the Holocaust survivors went through.
After all that has been said, it is clear that it is not possible to mention in one breath the circumstances of the plaintiff and the non-disclosure of the information regarding the money she wishes to receive, which were detailed at length above, and those survivors who went through the worst of all, and I will not elaborate on additional distinguishing details because there are many.