In response to this, Mr. Lotem responds on July 18, 2016: "It's repetitive. First of all, the wording of "to the best of my knowledge" is not acceptable to me. Second, why does a Cypriot company suddenly have a lawyer in Israel? How do they know about the activity? (By the way, this is a different ministry than the one that declared the dividend distribution). And you still haven't answered the answer - what is the source of the money? In any case, the absorption of funds is under the authority of the Managing Director of the branch and according to the procedure."
In the documents, as presented to the court, there is no documentation of correspondence or further contact regarding this dividend to Toledano, there is no dispute that the bank allowed the receipt of the dividend into the account and that until November 2016 there was no request regarding the Toledano account.
- The second stage - from November 2016 until the date of sending the closure notice;
There is no dispute that in November 2016, Toiga applied and requested an extension of bank guarantees issued to it by the bank, and negotiations were conducted between the bank and the company's employees regarding the documents required for their extension. Including this on November 21, 2016, it was written by Mr. Michal that all the documents that were requested were being transferred.
- In correspondence between the bank's employees themselves, regardless of the aforesaid, on November 20, 2016, Lotem contacted and announced:
"Good morning, Haim Toledano, in an income tax investigation, and in his company account (Toiga), funds are received from a Cypriot company with a bank account in Riga. I ask you to find out why this activity has not stopped." It should be emphasized, already at this stage, in the correspondence up to that date, no instruction can be found according to which the activity should have been halted - the opposite is true, as it emerges from the detail that is the subject of the first stage, from July onwards there was no contact with the plaintiffs or any of them and their alleged activity continued as usual.