I cannot accept this explanation. It contradicts basic logic, and is also inconsistent with his conduct in practice.
In terms of basic logic, according to Mr. Knepfler, he has already undergone two fundamental deceptions. One is still at the stage of examining the possibility that the transaction will be carried out through the Tamir-Fishman Fund. Even then, according to him, a significant gap was discovered between Mr. Nehemiah's description of things and the fund's due diligence. And even later, he discovered that "everything was a lie," immediately after the agreement was signed. At this stage, he invested about half a million euros. And what does Mr. Knepfler do in the face of this reality? He is going to pay an additional 1.65 million euros to one of the company's creditors. And in the business sector, he paid about 3.5 million euros. In other words, after he learned that he had been deceived, he paid an amount that exceeded seven times the amount he had paid until he learned that he had been deceived.
And why would he do this? Why should they intensify the risk of his money so much? His answer that he did not want to lose the investment of half a million euros he paid cannot stand. After all, this is a company that could go bankrupt at any moment. Its creditors knocked on the doors day and night. In order not to risk half a million euros, did Mr. Knepfler decide to risk 3.5 million euros? The negative answer is obvious.
- The explanation for Mr. Knepfler's conduct is different. As mentioned, ADN's problematic situation was known to him even before he entered into an agreement with it. Indeed, the picture of things that he discovered was more gloomy than he had estimated, but this matter is limited by him in the agreement he reached with Mr. Nehemia (see above in paragraph 156), according to which about 500,000 euros of the consideration component will be made available for future accounting between the parties.
This fact shows that, after all, Mr. Knepfler still believed in the deal. He believed that the relevant assets in France had potential. He believed that the price he paid for the purchase of some of the rights in the property companies was good and worthwhile for him. All the allegations of deception of one kind or another were limited to one-eighth of the contractual consideration (half a million euros out of four million). No less, but no more. The claims of deception and deception that are being raised today have weighed much less in real time.