In contrast, in his cross-examination, Shabbat suddenly claimed that OFM was a Belize company. Thus, on page 144, lines 5-8, Shabbat testified:
"The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: Contracted with option fm. option fm Ina was a friend of Oren Shabbat.
Adv. Asif: option fm Is it a company?
The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: option fm There was a girlfriend.
Adv. Asif: Where was it registered?
The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: In Belize.
And later on:
The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: Or I mean because of,
The Honorable Judge Bibi: If you know yes then where does this information come from? Just because you sat here today?
The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: Exactly,
The Honorable Judge Bibi: This is the first time you have learned that today, today for the first time, you have learned that the plaintiff has called,
The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: that she contracted with a company called option fmTrue, and because of this,
The Honorable Judge Bibi: And did you only find out today?
The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: That's right."
Shabbat's version that he first discovered that the plaintiff claimed that she had contracted with OFM, only at the time of the evidentiary hearing, is puzzling to say the least, given that the name OFM recurs like a thread between the plaintiff's claims in the statement of claim (starting with paragraph 1 of the introduction to the statement of claim) and is repeated again and again in the framework of the statement of claim - as well as in its appendices and in the plaintiff's affidavit. Moreover, the name OFM appears in the forms signed by the plaintiff and which are mentioned by Shabbat himself in his affidavit (see, for example, paragraph 8 of his affidavit referring to Appendix 1 to the affidavit). In these circumstances, apart from the fact that this is a suppressed version of the defendants, which contradicts their previous version, I in any case find Shabbat's version on this matter unreliable.
Moreover, Shabbat's version that it was a company from Belize, as well as his previous version that he did not know which company the plaintiff contracted with, contradict the plaintiff's bank statements - which were also submitted without objection (moreover, in their arguments as detailed above, the defendants refer to what is stated in them, while claiming that they indicate that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with a Cypriot company). Thus, a review of the account statements - which were attached to the plaintiff's affidavit - shows that on November 10, 2015 (page 244 of the plaintiff's affidavits), two transactions of deposit and withdrawal appeared with BANC DE Binary 35780094543 CY" (BDB). As for BDB, Shabbat confirmed that he is the owner of a company in Cyprus with this name and that he owns the brand BANC de binary (see his testimony on page 139, line 3, and on page 140, lines 18-19). Moreover, Avisror confirmed in his testimony that in his LinkedIn profile, he wrote that he worked at Banc the Binary and did not write that he worked at Global or AT. When asked why he wrote this, he replied on page 132, lines 13-15: