Serious Crimes Case (Haifa) 9375-05-21 State of Israel v. David Abu Aziz - part 84

Adv. Paz Goldhorn (October 10, 2024, p.  4507, s.  26 ff.) represented Hananya Piso in other legal proceedings, and entered into a loan agreement between him and the defendant (P/43).  Prior to that, he did not know the defendant.  After about two years (in 2019), he made an addendum to the loan agreement.  When Piso did not meet the terms of the refund, he came to a meeting in his office with the defendant to try to solve the problem of reimbursement.  To his impression, Hananya Piso's relationship with the defendant was normal, and the defendant supported him.  He was not aware that Hananya Piso said (in his interrogation) that he was initially represented by the deceased and approached the witness following a dispute that developed between the deceased and the defendant.  If Adv. Moran Vaknin said that Hananya Piso was afraid of the defendant, then, according to him, he never had such an impression, even though he had represented Hananya Piso for quite a few years.  He said, "which is written in the agreement and this part [...] It is made clear to them that at the end of the payment period, this property will be transferred to Abu Aziz, and in the second agreement it is written that it will be registered for the benefit of a third party." The witness was told that he had taken Hananya Piso's money, fled the country, and since the money in his possession belonged to the defendant, he came to the defendant's defense.  He explained that at the end of 2020, Hananya Piso approached him about not transferring all the funds to the defendant.  A proposal was made that the payment be made through the witness, by way of a fiduciary mechanism.  In other words, Hananya Piso deposited in an escrow account that was in the name of the witness deferred checks for rent that he received from some property, and the witness was supposed to transfer the money to the defendant.  In the end, the money was not transferred to the defendant because the witness left the country, but later a "substantial" part of the money was returned to Hananya Piso's son.  According to his version, he still owes money to Hananya Piso (about 50 percent of the money deposited in his possession).  Although the funds were held in trust in favor of the defendant, Hananya Piso did not give him instructions regarding their transfer to the defendant.  He did not inform the defendant about the return of the money to Hananya Piso's son, and claimed that he had no contact with the defendant.