I find it to be noted, already at this stage, that the plaintiffs' companies, at the relevant times of the lawsuit, have four client companies - one is UFX TRADE (which was a client of the plaintiffs until the end of 2016) which is a company incorporated in Belize and operated in Cyprus, the second is UFX GLOBAL, which is a company that began to be a client of the plaintiffs in place of UFX TRADE, whose place of incorporation is in Vanuatu and its activity is in Cyprus; and the third, MPF GLOBAL (hereinafter: "MPF") whose place of activity is in Cyprus; and the fourth is RELIANTCO GLOBAL (hereinafter: "REALANTCO"), which has its place of activity in Cyprus.
(hereinafter: "the plaintiffs' client companies").
- Plaintiff No. 1 in Civil Case 265-04-17 Mr. Toledano Haim is a private businessman whose current account (shekels and foreign currency) number 442253 is maintained at the defendant's bank as of August 5, 2007. As stated, Mr. Toledano served at the relevant times of the lawsuit as one of the directors of Toiga Online and Toiga Media, and is also one of the shareholders of Paragon AX, which is the parent company of these companies, whether by holding its shares directly or by holding his shares in it through a trustee.
Plaintiff No. 2 in Civil Case 265-04-17 - Lihat is a private company owned by Mr. Toledano that manages a current account (shekel and foreign currency) No. 441982 at the defendant's bank since 2008.
- On March 20, 2017, the Bank sent a letter in which all the account numbers of the plaintiffs are detailed as detailed above, which was intended for all the plaintiffs and in which the recipient is: "Haim Toledano and the Toiga Group". As part of the letter, the bank announced that the manner in which the account was managed (sic, 32) was inconsistent with the bank's customary conduct for such an account and with their declarations when opening the accounts. It was further stated that the plaintiffs were asked to provide sufficient explanations and documents for the nature of the activity in the group's accounts, and that a detailed and accurate list was received that the plaintiffs did not meet. The bank further detailed that it is required by the Bank of Israel to be familiar with the customer's activity, to receive appropriate explanations and references for each receipt and action carried out in the account, and that there is no compulsion not to allow the deposit of receipts.
In light of the above, the Bank concluded and announced: