According to him, in 2016 he filed a lawsuit against the defendant, according to which he should be instructed to submit to the tax authorities the original report form that remained in his possession and that he signed it, in which it was declared that he had sold the land (including a warehouse built on it) for the survey in exchange for ILS 475,000. This move led to the opening of the assessment many years after the first assessment was closed. Following his actions and in accordance with the court's recommendation, he filed a complaint against the defendant with the Israel Police and the Israel Bar Association. The defendant was arrested twice and the court prohibited him from practicing law.
In this regard, it was determined by the Real Estate Tax Offices that the value of the transaction was ILS 1,400,000 and that the victim paid betterment tax in the amount of ILS 640,000 for the second assessment. According to him, the defendant must bear the difference in payments in the amount of ILS 386,468, which the victim was forced to pay out of his own pocket due to the defendant's fraudulent activities. The defendant should have submitted the correct documents close to the date of signing the sale agreement, in accordance with the provisions of the law (Appendices 7-11).
In support of the indictment that emerges from the eighth indictment , according to which the defendant purchased the right of ownership for him in trust from the Avlini brothers, he attached the land registry document (Appendix A), and due to the dispute between the defendant and the victim, the statement of claim filed by the defendant against him and its appendices (Appendix B) were attached, as well as the indictment he filed against the defendant (Appendix C). In addition, the judgments handed down by the District Court were attached, according to which after completing the sum of ILS 23,000, he will be entitled to register as the owner of half of the lot (Appendix D). Also attached was the Supreme Court's judgment rejecting the defendant's appeal against the District Court's judgment (Appendix E), as well as the defendant's request for an extension of time to hold an additional hearing on the Supreme Court's ruling, which was rejected (Appendix F).