Among other things, the bank claims that the plaintiffs failed to show that their clients have valid licenses - since the UFX TRADE license that was presented in 2014 expired, as for the companies Realentco and MPF, only printouts from the CYSEC website were displayed , from which it is not clear whether their licenses are valid and in which countries, and as for UFX GLOBAL, only a license from the State of Vanuatu was invented, and no licenses were presented allowing this company to operate in other countries. The bank also refers to the inexplicable exchange of UFX TRADE with UFX GLOBAL.
Moreover, according to the bank, tax approvals were not submitted as required - including the plaintiffs' claim that the plaintiffs' reliance on the instructions of the Banking Supervision Department and the rules of ethics of the lawyers regarding the wording of the certificates should be rejected, given that this is a claim that was not made in real time. Moreover, the Bank points out that in the case of Rialentco, no tax certificate was produced at all, and in the case of MPF, a lawful tax certificate was not produced, given that certificates were produced attesting to the company's payment of tax, but no tax certificates were produced attesting to the fact that the plaintiffs' customers deducted tax at source to their end customers.
Moreover, the bank further argues that its suspicion regarding the plaintiffs' customers' preoccupation with binary options remains intact, and without derogating from it, it argues that in any case this is an argument that is part of the totality of the circumstances and evidence, and which does not constitute the main reason for the bank's request to close the accounts. Thus, according to the bank, this is also the case with regard to the erroneous belief that Paragon EX is the owner of the company's three customers, and even in its absence, the bank has multiple grounds for closing the accounts on the date of the decision of March 20, 2017.
With regard to the plaintiffs' claim that the bank deliberately refrained from summoning relevant witnesses on its behalf, including Ms. Sigal Sadi Mantin, and that this should be attributed to its detriment, the bank claims that it testified the relevant witnesses, including the branch manager, who has personal knowledge of the accounts, as well as Mr. Lotem, who was the compliance controller responsible for compliance at the relevant branch. The bank also claims that it disclosed every relevant document, including correspondence from a CRM system in the framework of Appendix 3 to Lotem's affidavit. He further points out that additional documents are in any case from a later date than the beginning of the legal proceedings, and therefore, it is clear that they were not disclosed earlier.