The plaintiffs further point out that with regard to the accounts of Toledano and Lichat, the bank did not question Toledano at all about his affidavit regarding his personal account, did not raise any argument establishing the grounds for closing Lihat's account, and did not bring relevant witnesses to testify about the reasons for closing these accounts. As such, they argue that the bank's decision regarding the closure of these accounts should be revoked, even if the claims relating to the plaintiffs' accounts are rejected. In a parenthetical article, the plaintiffs further claim that even if Toledano had asked to close Licht's account, he had already made it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that he was not interested in closing this account and that he wished to keep it open, and therefore, there was no basis for closing this account.
As noted, the plaintiffs refer to the bank's failure to bring relevant witnesses as establishing a negative evidentiary presumption that acts against its version, and in this context they add that the bank even knowingly concealed documents from the plaintiffs and the court, including documents that exist in the customer's physical file and in atlas systems, and CRM - both systems that document inquiries to and from customers, the existence of which emerged from the testimonies of the bank's witnesses and which the bank refrained from disclosing and the content of the documents contained therein. In this regard, the plaintiffs request that the court bring these omissions in the framework of its considerations when examining the bank's conduct, as well as the evidentiary basis presented by it.
The plaintiffs oppose the bank's claims regarding a crisis of confidence in its relations with customers in general and with Toledano in particular, and they claim that this claim, beyond the fact that it was not factually based, constitutes an expansion of a prohibited front. More than necessary, they argue that even if he had been right in the claim, given that Toledano does not currently hold any role in the plaintiffs, since he resigned from his position as the plaintiffs' CEO, in any event, the crisis of trust, insofar as it existed, between him and the bank, is not sufficient to give rise to grounds for closing the plaintiffs' accounts.