Caselaw

Serious Crimes Case (Haifa) 9375-05-21 State of Israel v. David Abu Aziz - part 118

March 24, 2026
Print

In addition, Sigal Avioz was not familiar with the legal proceedings that were conducted in relation to the assets that were registered as her assets, and which are supposed to serve as an economic anchor and a source of income for her (pp.  4370 to p.  4373).  It was the defendant who actually conducted the proceedings in relation to the assets that were allegedly not his assets at all, but Sigal's, and which, according to the claim, were intended to be passed on to their joint children in the future.  It is therefore clear that the defendant took care of Sigal's assets when she was his spouse, and since the assets were also his own, even if they were not registered in his name (see also Sigal's words at p.  4374, para.  12, in particular, in the alleged divorce agreement, the defendant "won" only the car, while the land belongs to her.  See also p.  4386, "There was plot 49 that belongs to me and the 50 crossings are mine, 48 50 there were agreements there but I know that it was not registered in the land registry so their registration was not yet completed, I know that he handled it beyond that I am not familiar with the material", while in her interrogation with the police she clarified that she did not know anything about half a thing).

Moreover, it appears that the white Toyota vehicle, which is listed as a different appeal Stav, the joint daughter of the defendant and Sigal Avioz, was also used by the defendant on a regular basis, and therefore he also used it on the dates close to the incident, even though the Chevrolet vehicle was in his possession at all times.  This is because the purpose of the Chevrolet car was one and only, and for the purpose of "regular" mobility, the defendant used the family Toyota car.  This detail was "leaked" to Ariel during his testimony (October 10, 2024, p.  4465, para.  27), although he tried to correct his words later.

As for the house at 18 Gevvora Street in Nesher, the defendant summed it up in his own words (p.  4189, s.  27 ff.), "As I said, this house, even if you ask today, they will tell you that I live there, ask people today and they will tell you that I live there because I lived there for years, not a day or two, I lived there for years and years with my children, anyone you ask will say my house, Even today, ask and they will tell you my house."

Previous part1...117118
119...140Next part