"Q. I get it. The next question is regarding clause 5.3.5. You say that even though there was a decline of more than 10 percent in the spice sector, there was no reduction because the company's management said there was no decrease in the number of growers. So can you refer me to where in the working papers you see that they examined this claim of the company that there is no decrease in the number of growers, because I did not find it. But maybe I just don't know how to read the working papers and it could be.
- It certainly could be.
- So show me if you can.
- There is a working paper here in Appendix B to my opinion, in my opinion on 2 on the second page, it writes, since there has been a decline this year, look at the appendices,
- significantly.
- Significantly over 10 percent only in the amount of spices, we will examine the reduction that must be made on the advances paid to the promoters, to a spice grower, 1,558,000 multiplied by 14.7, to €229K. After Yohanan's consultation with the company's management, it was decided not to register another order because, according to the company, the decrease was in the quantity marketed, but the number of growers did not change.
- I mean, he didn't check it.
- It's (unclear) the accountant's, yes?
- Yes. So I mean, if I understand correctly, that what you saw was that Mr. Gav told him that, and then he was satisfied. It's not that he checked it. The company's management told him that the decline was just what was written, what you read to me, so he checked. But you didn't see an examination of it.
- There's no way he didn't check it, and if he didn't check it then he doesn't know what his situation is today and he has to get his license. Because when I get a management position, I always check it and always verify it. By the way, we keep saying in our profession that we are accountants and not accountants. So if someone says something to me, I usually check.
- Can you show me the worksheet that shows this test? Because I just couldn't find it.
- It says that after consulting with Yohanan and the company's management, it was decided, so if he decided because of this and this and that, then he made up his mind. This is a result of what is written here. That's how I understand it."
- The investigation of CPA Yohanan Gav in the investigator's report shows that the defendant did not examine whether these were payments that were transferred for future consideration, or for past transactions (Appendix 7 to the Aviv Opinion, at p. 44):
"Haim Camille: ... I don't understand what you're relying on. I ask have you seen anything that has let you understand that some contract for next year was bought using the previous year's payment?