Leonardo Lanchevsky, Ituran's security officer, confirmed that the system appeared to be disconnected from March 2020, but still continued to store information without any authorization. He also confirmed that this is not the first time that Ituran has transferred data in files when the system is disconnected. The public is not aware that the detection unit, even when it is disconnected, can continue to be used as a surveillance tool.
It was also alleged that there were failures in the legal proceedings and in the receipt of the orders. The data provided on 25 March 2021 was provided illegally, and another order issued on 26 March 2021 was produced on the basis of illegally obtained data. According to the claim, any product received before April 1, 2021 by means of an Ituran testimony, is liable to be canceled. It was alleged that "abuse of court proceedings and deceiving judges" was made by falsely representing that Ituran was authorized to provide data on a subscription, even though the Chevrolet was no longer a "subscriber." Ituran informed the police that there was no subscription to the Chevrolet, but the police issued a request for a judicial order under the guise of checking a subscription, and the court approved this without knowing the facts in full.
No document was submitted attesting to intelligence activity related to the Chevrolet vehicle prior to the appeal to Ituran, or any indication that the reference to Leonardo Lanchevsky and the court was "imaginary and purposeless." It was also mentioned that the initiative to check stopping points, an initiative that led to the locating of the coats, was conveyed in an unclear manner and while contradictory versions were given between witnesses.
It was claimed that Ituran's documentation "remained unreliable, inconsistent, and incapable of an orderly evidentiary examination."
Leonardo Lenchevsky testified about matters beyond his area of expertise, his words were based on rumors rather than technical knowledge, and they contradicted themselves and other testimonies. The accuser was therefore unable to clarify how the investigator Armen Golbandian, and later Shai Peleg, knew how to target certain points on the basis of Ituran's data, if the data had not been analyzed in depth and they did not have it in real time. Thus, contradictions were also discovered in the coordinating data (map ref.) and that these were "improper actions in coordinating versions between witnesses to cover up inadmissible evidence." Shai Peleg himself confirmed that there may be situations in which the vehicle is standing, but the Ituran data will indicate light movement, which casts doubt on the accuracy of the data.