On June 16, 2016, at the request of Mr. Alon Michal, the request was clarified as follows:
"I will clarify the request, we need you to pass a confirmation from a lawyer detailing who the shareholders in Ferragonex are in order to prove that they do not have ownership relationships with the companies/shareholders in the companies (specify who the shareholders are in the foreign companies) that Guiga works with."
In response to this, dated May 17, 2016, a certificate from the Registrar of Companies of Paragon EX shareholders was attached, from which it can be seen that there are no ownership relations between Paragon EX and its customers, and the bank's representative asks: "Please confirm to me that it provides a solution to what you have requested."
In its response, dated May 24, 2016, the bank requested a certificate of ownership of UFX in order to see that there is no ownership relationship between the owners of this company and the plaintiffs. This request was answered on the same day in a letter from Alon Michal, to which was attached UFX's certificate of incorporation, from which it can be learned that there is no connection between the companies. I will note that in the same correspondence, Mr. Michal notes that "I think I sent it to you already on April 19, and you can see that there are no ownership relations between the companies."
The answer from that day from Dganit on behalf of the bank is that no certificates of ownership of the other companies - i.e., Rialentco and MPF - were transferred, and in response, on the same day, approvals were also issued regarding these companies. In addition, on May 29, 2016, at the request of the bank, an updated approval from UFX is also sent.
- After all such material was transferred, the Bank also requested to receive the list of shareholders in the final chain of Paragon EX Kerry - if there is a company that is the owner, the names of its final controlling shareholders will also be transferred. The bank also asks that it be clarified why an Israeli entity issued a certificate of payment of UFX's taxes and not a foreign entity. And does the company have a connection to Israeli entities?
These questions, which were also raised by the bank, were also answered in a letter dated May 30, 2016, in which it was explained that the shareholders holding "through a company" are from England, constituting a few percent, and that these are investment funds that invested in the company, and a passport copy of a shareholder whose holdings are held in trust was also attached. In addition, the address of Paragon EX was provided, while as to whether the company had any connection to Israeli sources, it was clarified: "I don't know why they contacted an Israeli accountant to issue them the certificate of payment of taxes - perhaps because Toiga is an Israeli company that asked them for it for an Israeli bank. The company has no connection to Israeli elements."
- The next correspondence is from Chen Gabbay (who replaced the employee of the bank Dganit), who announced that the information had not been completed and Michal contacted the branch manager, Mr. Shaulson, with the question of what information had not yet been completed, to which he replied that the branch manager: "Waiting like you for answers ."
- Subsequently, a license was requested by UFX to engage in its territory in Belize, when it was transferred on 10/7/16 by Mr. Michal a valid license only until December 2014, a valid license was requested and the answer was that this is what was sent by the company and that Mr. Michal would contact it.
- On July 10, 2016, Mr. Shaulson, the branch manager, contacted and requested: a document signed by an attorney stating that there are no ownership relations between the plaintiffs and UFX; further clarification is requested as to why Toiga is marketing to UFX, which is a competitor of Paragon EX; and an up-to-date UFX license was requested.
In response to this, Mr. Michal replied that he did not understand how the bank reached the conclusion that UFX is a competitor of Paragon EX and at the request of Mr. Shaulzon he clarifies that the conclusion is wrong, that Toiga is held by Paragon EX but does not provide it with any service, and the evidence is that there is no income from Paragon EX in Toiga. Yes, a certificate signed by a lawyer confirming that there is no ownership relationship between Toiga and UFX. Mr. Michal further notes that in response to his request, regarding the UFX license, the company replied that it was the license it had. This answer ended with a request that the bank update as much as it is required for further information.
- There is no dispute that from the date of the last correspondence - i.e., on July 10, 2016, and after the transfer of the documents as required and detailed above in detail, the activity in the plaintiffs' accounts continued without any further comment or request. Moreover, an examination of the documents that were forwarded by the Bank itself, regarding the internal correspondence between its employees, shows that no correspondence relating to the plaintiffs or the documents transferred by them was exchanged between the Bank's employees as of November 2016.
- I find it necessary to emphasize that at this stage, i.e., until July 2016, the correspondence shows that the bank itself requested different documents each time and that its requests were also "evolving", i.e., every time something was transferred to it, something additional or different was requested that stemmed from the document as it was forwarded. It should be emphasized that there is nothing wrong with the bank's conduct at this stage - insofar as documents that are forwarded by customers raise various questions, suspicions or questions, the bank must clarify and remove them. However, up to this date, it is clear that the plaintiffs do not evade or ignore the bank's requests, but rather respond, to the best of their ability, to any demand or request of the bank, and the bank's additional inquiries are not because the plaintiff companies did not provide it with the documents that were requested, but in light of refinements, or additions requested by the bank, further to the documents and information that were provided by the plaintiffs.
- The correspondence relating to the Toledano account:
The correspondence with respect to Toledano's account began in July 2016, close to the date on which dividend funds are received in his account.