The aforementioned administrative petition 66260-11-21 is the plaintiff's sister-in-law's petition against the 2018 decision of the Israel Police to refuse to grant a business license to a new, ostensibly new strip club, which operated in the same place as the club, but the Israel Police refused, inter alia, on the grounds that the plaintiff's sister-in-law served only as a cover and "straw woman" for the plaintiff herself, who continued to manage this club even after her conviction and imprisonment.
In the aforesaid judgment, the court ruled that there was substance to the police's claims regarding the plaintiff's actual management of the club in its new format, and that her sister-in-law was indeed serving as a cover for her, after examining administrative evidence and confidential material that was presented to him (paragraphs 41-42 of the judgment).
In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiff was forfeited considerable sums of money, at least NIS 180,000 (as her version was not supported by evidence), but the defendant presented publications claiming forfeiture of over NIS 1 million and a fine of NIS 100,000 in addition to the prison sentence (Exhibit E of the defendant's exhibits is shown on page 30 of the exhibits file), but even in this context the information is not clear in view of the plaintiff's refusal to disclose all the relevant information.
- The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916 I will already comment as a general note that despite the fact that the defendant stated in his reasons for not opening the bank account that criminal convictions are presented below, and also in his affidavit and evidence through the Ministry of Justice's publications in this regard, beyond the media publications, the plaintiff made every effort to refrain from providing information regarding the offenses of which she was convicted even during her cross-examination, even though in the circumstances of the present proceeding and in view of the defendant's reasons for refraining from opening the account, this is important and relevant information that is in her knowledge and not a casual rummation of her past (see, for example, p. 20 of the transcript, lines 19-21; p. 22, lines 27-28, etc.), and the meaning is clear.
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)