Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 44767-04-14 Israel Alhalal v. Rami Geva Mikulitsky - part 7

Closing note

94. Before concluding, I found it necessary to address the defendants' argument that there is room to invalidate the data of CPA Schiffer, the opinion of Browder and the opinion of Buchnik on the grounds that the plaintiff and his experts compiled the data. According to them, these opinions should be disqualified because the diary order was prepared as of April 1, 2014 (and it should be clarified that these data lead, inter alia, to the conclusion that there are withdrawals for which there are no references and invoices).  In other words, it was simply claimed that the plaintiff and the experts on his behalf had falsely recorded data in Rami's ledger in an attempt to "tailor" a file for him (paragraphs 97-98 of the defendants' summaries), and that this data also permeated the Buchnik opinion, which was also based in part on the plaintiff's representations.
95. I am unable to accept these arguments. I accept the methodology of CPA Schiffer, who noted that he was forced to fill in the many missing information from the defendants' conduct based on checks and appendices, since the Excel tables prepared by Ofer did not correspond to the real business activity of the joint business.  CPA Schiffer clarified in his interrogation that Israel did not instruct him in any way (pp.  189-190), and I believe that he is a reliable witness.  CPA Shifer also testified that these are not fabricated data (p.  188, paras.  9-20): "It is written on it [on the appendix - H.P.] the details.  It's not someone, I'm not inventing (...) There's an indication here with a date, with a payment, and it lists who wrote down the amount and whom, he also writes down the pashatra and all these things.  This is from the appendix that Ofer and he held and managed (...) the control of these notebooks was in the hands of Ofer and Rami."
96. See also the testimony of CPA Schiffer, which refutes the claim of forgery (p. 183, paras.  13-34; pp.  184, 1-5):
97. So how do you explain the fact that the expert came and said that for some of the withdrawals, supposedly the person who reads the opinion for the first time, gets the impression that Rami withdrew money from the business without reporting it and without presenting any references. But in fact, what happened was that you entered these commands without any references to them.  How do you explain that?
98. The answer is very simple. As I explained to you earlier, it was written, there were appendices and there were no details.  After that, it was written 'Rami' or 'Rami Pashtar' something like that.
99. Where was it written?
100. On the appendix of the check was written details. This is not called a reference.  Reference, in order to record an expense in the business, it needs to be, bring an invoice, bring a document that justifies that I can make an accounting record.  When you write I bought, I bought an ATV, I bought it, I bought payments to the Pashtar or something like that, it's your record, it's your statements.  This is not a reference, but it is an indication to register to charge your card.  In other words, you are obligated to write 'Rami' on the card, which he wrote 'Peshtar'.
101. Who registered? How do you know who wrote on the appendices? (...) How do you know?
102. Because I saw the report, he threw his notebook at me.
103. Who is it, who did it throw at you?
104. Rami.
105. In any case, even if there is some fault in the supplements made by CPA Schiffer (and I do not determine so), there is a long way to go before the opinion of Dr. Buchnik is disqualified.  CPA Buchnik approached the parties, cooperated with them and conducted himself openly and transparently.  It is presumed that if CPA Schipper's data had been presumed to be illogical, taking into account contradictory or other data provided to him by the other parties, he would have raised this issue and taken it into account in his opinion.  Therefore, I did not find room to disqualify his opinion.  In addition, I did not find any substance in the defendants' arguments regarding the lack of witness testimony; and I do not accept their argument that the plaintiff's testimony was the testimony of a single litigant.  It is precisely the defendants who did not bring any external witness to support their claims: not any of the employees of the business; from the customers; Not Sigalit or Grunler; Nor did their claims support any opinion, contrary to the plaintiff.

Conclusion

98. In view of my determination that the defendants stole the plaintiff's money, in the amount determined by the court's expert, the claim against them is accepted and they must return to the plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of ILS 2,627,284. I will note that I have chosen to impose the liability jointly and severally on the two defendants, in view of my conclusions regarding the role of each of the defendants in the joint business.  Even if Rami was the "living spirit", Ofer was in charge of the accounting records; He knew where each and every reception was going; facilitated the same fraudulent activity; He did not reveal what was happening to Israel, whose money was stolen.
99. Therefore, the defendants, jointly and severally, must return to the plaintiff the sum of ILS 2,627,284, with this sum bearing linkage and interest differentials as required by law from the date of filing the claim until the actual full payment. The sums received by the plaintiff from defendants 2-4 and 7-8 must be deducted from the amount received for payment, which bear linkage and interest differentials from the date they were paid to him until the date of the judgment.  The payment will be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment.
100. As for legal expenses - in addition to the amount I ordered in section 99 above, the defendants will refund the plaintiff the fee paid, bearing linkage and interest differentials from the date of payment until the full repayment in effect. They will also participate in the plaintiff's attorney's fees in the amount of ILS 100,000.  The plaintiff will bear the rest of his expenses (witnesses; experts; transcription) in view of his omissions, as emerges from this judgment.
101. The secretariat will close this file.

Granted today, April 29, 2025, in the absence of the parties.