Similar to and specifically to the decision of a banking corporation, it was held in Civil Case (Haifa District) 725/01 Yitzhak Amer & Co. Company for Initiation, Construction and Investments, 1995 [published in Nevo] (November 23, 2013) by the Honorable Judge Amit: "Even if it is possible to disagree with the bank's estimates, they fall within the realm of reasonableness of the banking-business judgment, and the court does not place its discretion in place of the bank's discretion - Civil Appeal 6505/97 Bonei HaTichon in Tax Appeal v. Bank Hapoalim, IsrSC 35(1) 577, 591-593."
At the same time, in the Bustan HaHermon judgment it was held:
"Indeed, the court does not place its discretion in place of the bank's, and it does not sit as a court of appeal against its decisions, but where it is clear on the face of it that the bank did not consider the considerations it should have considered, and reached an erroneous and unreasonable decision, the court must intervene in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice."
I will note that the manner in which judicial review of the decision of the banking corporation is conveyed stems, inter alia, from the fact that, like managing bodies, the starting point, so far, is that the banking corporation not only "has nothing of its own", but that it is interested in increasing the mass of its customers and therefore, in a structured manner, is interested in providing a service as a rule. Thus, in Civil Case Cell (Hai District) 19332-12-11 Yosef Shelesh v. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank in a Tax Appeal [published in Nevo] (February 18, 2015) it was held that: "Generally, the obligation to provide a service, consistent with the purpose of the business corporation - it is the defendant in our case. A clash between the bank's business goals and its duty to provide service can be found where the bank is concerned about providing service to a particular person."
- In the framework of their arguments, the applicants refer to the tension that has arisen between the banking corporation's duty to provide services and the duties imposed on it in accordance with the anti-money laundering legislation, as well as to the change that has occurred in the banking corporation's set of considerations, which is no longer someone who has nothing of its own and is interested in increasing the mass of its customers, but is one who, like any risk-averse entity, is motivated under threat of criminal or financial sanctions that will be imposed on it. If he does not fulfill the obligations imposed on him in accordance with the legislation for the prevention of money laundering and terrorism. According to the plaintiffs, these concerns of the banking corporations outweigh their desire to provide the service and are capable of leading to hasty determinations by the banking corporations, where this is legitimate but non-standard conduct. The plaintiffs, as stated, are of the opinion that given all this, the court must change the manner in which the decisions of the banking corporations are conveyed under its control, so that the court will examine the discretion exercised by the bank in a normal manner and not while applying the "range of reasonableness" or presumptions relating to the correctness of the proceeding.
I will note that the plaintiffs refer to the Supreme Court's decision in the Bits of Gold case, as the basis for their argument regarding the change in the manner in which the decisions of the banking corporations should be subjected to the court's review. In the same matter, the decision of Bank Leumi to close the account of a customer who operated a trading platform in digital currencies (cryptocurrencies) of the type of Bitcoin was discussed, in circumstances in which the Bank of Israel and the Supervisor of Banks did not decide on the issue of the legality of such activity. Given the above, when the District Court was required to examine the bank's decision, it held, by the Honorable Judge Etdegi, that: