"In light of the threats, is it possible to close the accounts at Branch 77?
and whether it is possible to check the relationship between the complainant and the customers."
The answer that was received from Tali Schiff is that if the customer threatens to harm him directly, he should report to the bank's security officer and according to his recommendation to file a complaint with the police or not, and that it is necessary to speak with Shlomo Katz and find out whether, in light of the customer's behavior and his threats to the bank's clerks, it is possible to inform him that the bank is no longer interested in managing his account at the bank.
With regard to this correspondence, I find it necessary to make a number of comments: First, in the framework of the proceeding before me, the Bank did not repeat the allegation regarding alleged threats made by Mr. Toledano to Ms. Sigal Sadi Mantin or to Mr. Gabbay Chen. Moreover, the bank chose not to testify Ms. Sadi Mantin, as well as Mr. Gabbay in general, and as to this issue in particular and its omission (as detailed below), it constitutes an evidentiary presumption that acts against its version and claim. Moreover, the bank did not present any complaint to the police regarding the threats, and did not repeatedly claim a connection between the anonymous complaint and the plaintiffs or any of them. I am of the opinion that the aforesaid combination indicates an attempt by the bank to find an additional reason for closing the customers' account, in light of the doubt in the bank's heart as to the existence of an arbitrary cause for such a decision that it had already made. I am of the opinion that support for this conclusion can be found in the doubt that arises as to the veracity of the alleged events, in light of the bank's conduct in the legal proceeding with respect to these events, combined with the fact that at the end of the application it is sought to examine whether these events constitute a basis for closing the account, and also with the fact that a decision - which was not reflected to the customers - regarding the closure of the account was made by the bank as early as November 2016 without prima facie basis in law.
- As stated, this correspondence, as well as the claims embodied in it, were not reflected to the plaintiffs, and in the context of the correspondence between the plaintiffs and the bank, a letter was sent on December 19, 2016, from Ms. Sigal Sadi Mantin, according to which the documents as they were forwarded are insufficient and that documents should be forwarded as detailed in the list below:
"1. A detailed description of the company's activities in Israel and abroad - approved and verified by an attorney.
- For each transferor - a detailed field of activity, an explanation of who the end customers are, which countries they work in, which countries the customers are located in, a valid license to operate in that country, and a compliance document detailing how to avoid operating in enemy countries and countries under sanctions, and a full list of shareholders.
- 901.15 attached for all transferring companies. "
As a pause and as an additional interim note, I would like to note first that the documents requested in this last application are different from the documents requested in the previous application. Moreover, I find it necessary to emphasize that in the correspondence that was forwarded by the Bank in the framework of document discovery, which purports to disclose all the internal correspondence between its employees, there is no documentation that the material that was previously transferred by the plaintiffs was indeed transferred to the Compliance Department, and yes, there are no comments by the Compliance Department on the material as it was transferred.
- I find it necessary to emphasize that there is no documentation in the correspondence that the plaintiffs forwarded the material, information and documents, as requested in Ms. Sadi Mantin's application of 19 December 2016, and this until 9 February 2017 in a letter, the contents of which as well as the documents attached to it will be detailed below. Instead, on January 16, 2017, Toledano contacted him, through his counsel, referring to the aforementioned meeting that took place in December and noted that after receiving the dividend money, Sigal contacted him and informed him that she was not willing to receive any more funds, and that as a result he initiated a meeting at the branch in which it was made clear to him by Sigal that the bank prefers to close the account, since the bank prefers not to deal with companies abroad. It was further claimed that Toledano asked what approvals were required in order to enable the receipt of the dividend funds, and was answered by Ms. Sigal Sadi Mantin, who had no special request, because it did not matter, and Sigal demanded that no dividend funds be transferred from abroad. Toledano's counsel further clarifies, with regard to the proceedings of the tax authorities, that there is no connection between the investigation and the accounts and notes that following this meeting, the dividend was returned, with a denied claim that Toledano asked to be returned. As part of the request, the bank was asked what information or documents it needed in order to enable the continuation of Toledano's activity. In a parenthetical article, I will note that the content of this letter raises doubts as to whether Toledano did indeed receive the letter from Ms. Sadi Mantin dated December 19, 2016, which is not mentioned at all in this letter.
- An examination of the internal correspondence of the bank's employees shows that following this request, a correspondence took place in which Sigal Sadi Mantin addressed Toledano's claims and claimed that he did not provide the documents required by the bank, the matter was clarified to him in a telephone conversation, following which he arrived at the branch. Sadi Mantin also detailed that in that meeting she informed the client that in July the last receipt had been entered, as he had promised to close the account. In addition, Mrs. Sadi Mantin notes that: "There was a promise made by the client to the referent in the account and documented in the CRM, the client approved the return of all receipts in my presence and in the presence of the employee Chen Gabbay. The client met with the referee and the branch manager, and at this point he denied that he had given an order to return the funds. We provided the client with a list of documents that are required in order to examine the receipt of funds. On 13/12 the client sent documents for review. On December 19, 2016, I sent the list of required documents again, and to this day we have not received it. Regarding the connection between Toledano and Toyga, it was written: "Haim Toledano holds Toyga's shares through his holding of Fergons shares, so that the activities of Toyga and Chaim Toledano cannot be separated." I will note that in the framework of the internal correspondence, Sigal writes that on December 19, 2016, she sent the list "again", while as detailed above, the list that was sent - insofar as it was sent - on December 19, 2016, is not identical to the previous list that was forwarded.
In response to this internal correspondence by Mrs. Sigal Sadi Mantin, Ms. Schiff Tali wrote to Sigal Sadi Mantin on June 17, 2017: "I did not understand how the issue had now surfaced again, more than a month ago instructions were given to send a letter demanding the customer to stop operations and even the wording of the letter. "