Eliezer Suissa testified (11 July 2024, p. 4273, s. 2 onwards) that he mediated between the defendant and the late Shlomo Einhorn regarding the purchase of a plot in the complex. As part of the meeting for the signing of the memorandum of understanding (N/26, April 7, 1995). The defendant also lent Shlomo Einhorn a sum of money, according to him, for the purpose of paying taxes (N/27, N/28, which, according to the witness, was signed by a law firm). The defendant was interested in purchasing an additional part of the complex, but Shlomo Einhorn said that if necessary, he would sell it to him in the future. A few years later, Moshe, Shlomo Einhorn's son, said that they wanted to sell more land in the compound. The witness approached the defendant who was interested in the purchase. They met at the religious council and "agreed things between them, and I think he bought it afterwards." Later, "There was another half of the land that belonged to Shlomo and the heirs Moshe wanted to sell it. [...] Half, yes, half of the area, I don't remember the area, it's 49 50, I don't know. [...] His factory, the border of his [the defendant's] factory is right behind him." The crossings were discussed in Plot No. 50 (N/32).
Yitzhak Sivan, a real estate appraiser (and former Director of Real Estate Taxation - Haifa), testified (July 11, 2024, p. 4288, paras. 32 onwards) that he was appointed by the court to serve as an arbitrator between the various parties involved in the complex, but after he began the arbitration process, he realized that the dispute was essentially a legal dispute, and therefore, due to his workload, he announced his resignation. He did not meet the defendant, but claimed that the defendant (Avioz) would be represented by the late attorney Arnon, or at least so he thought. As for the conversation he had with the interrogator Roy Weinberger, in which he allegedly said that he left the arbitration in light of his meeting with the defendant ("I saw who I was dealing with, so I decided to resign and stop the arbitration process"), he claimed that he never said so (a memorandum dated April 28, 2021 prepared by Roy Weinberger was submitted and marked N/52). The statement to the police and the transcript of the interrogation and the statements he made during his interrogation with the police were also submitted with consent (P/51 A+B). He claimed that he had not even told the late attorney Arnon by phone that he was leaving the arbitration in light of threats, contrary to what Attorney Moran Vaknin described. Although the people involved spoke among themselves in an unpleasant language ("market language"), he was personally not threatened. In cross-examination, he explained that even if the defendant said that he had met him, in view of his past position, it was many years ago and he could not remember. It was claimed that in the pleadings that led to the arbitration proceeding, the defendant was mentioned as an "invader" of one of the plots, but he did not respond to this explicitly.