Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 262-04-17 Toiga Online Ltd. v. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Ltd. - part 4

According to the bank, given the existence of the red flags as detailed, it is obligated to act with caution and suspicion with regard to the plaintiffs' financial activity, as well as to demand documents and explanations that will remove suspicions that arise from the aforementioned red flags that illegal money laundering activity is being conducted.  The problem, according to the bank, was that it received from the plaintiffs partial documents or those that did not meet its demands, despite repeated opportunities given by it to the plaintiffs.  Moreover, not only did the documents provided by the plaintiffs not remove the suspicions, but they were sufficient to inflame them, given that contradictions were discovered in them, and yes, since they were in part sufficient to support the suspicions that arose in the hearts of the bank's employees regarding the plaintiffs' activities.  This includes the fact that the plaintiffs did not submit proper tax certificates relating to their clients, and that the information detailed in the attorneys' certificates, which were provided to it by the plaintiffs, was not disclosed with the lawyer's personal knowledge, but was based on the attorney's clients' statements without conducting an independent examination.  The Bank further points out that in response to a question regarding the plaintiffs' activity, the Bank answered in a vague manner that they "provide services to foreign companies in the financial field, in accordance with the agreements for the provision of these services." According to the bank, it was not clarified as to the source of Paragon EX's funds, as the only information provided regarding its activities was that it was a holding company.  IN ADDITION, IT WAS NOT CLARIFIED WHY TWO TWIGA COMPANIES WERE REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT THE SAME ACTIVITY AND WHY PARAGON EX WAS INCORPORATED IN THE OFF-SHORE STATE.  In addition, it was argued that the plaintiffs did not clarify the activity of their customers and did not refute the suspicions that arose regarding the activity of the plaintiffs' clients in the field of binary options, suspicions that were even aggravated, since the bank collected indications indicating such activity.