Certificates were also presented attesting to the shareholders in the clients' companies, and it became clear that the bank's reasoning, which was allegedly based on one of the letters that were forwarded to the bank, according to which Paragon EX is the owner of the plaintiffs' client companies, was based on an error in reading the confirmation in this letter [see Lotem's testimony of May 15, 2018, on page 20, lines 1-12].
In addition, I will note that I did not find any substance in the bank's claim that there is a connection between the companies Realtco and MPF , evidence of which is in the vicinity of their offices, given that from the testimony of Mr. Yoav Shinitsky on behalf of the plaintiffs - which was not denied - I learned that this is the central business area of Limassol and moreover, these are various complexes [see his testimony of June 12, 2018 on page 226, lines 29-31].
Moreover, in the framework of the testimony of Mr. Michal Alon [see mainly pages 33-34 of the minutes of the hearing of May 24, 2018], the plaintiffs' activities for their clients and the division of labor between them and their clients were clarified, and accordingly - in a crude manner - the advertising and locating of leads is carried out by the client companies, these leads are transferred to the plaintiffs who initiate contact with potential customers and turn them into actual customers, the plaintiffs even explain to the client the modus operandi of the trading arena and support him to the extent that he is required for explanations. After the customer signs the agreement and asks to deposit money by credit card, the customer companies carry out all the compliance actions [see his testimony of May 24, 2018, on pages 35-36], including "Know the Customer" actions [see his testimony of May 24, 2018, on page 36, lines 4-11]. I will note that with regard to the "Know the Client" activity, the witness qualified and confirmed that this activity is carried out by the plaintiffs on behalf of UFX and is not carried out by it [see his testimony on page 34, lines 2-5], however, he clarified that the client's approval is carried out by the UFX compliance officer [ibid.]. It was further clarified that these companies, i.e., the customer companies, employ many employees, in a manner that rejects a possible claim regarding the artificiality of their activities [see his testimony on page 47]. I will note that although Mr. Michal's testimony did not clarify the general logic underlying the method of remuneration for the plaintiffs, including his ability to clarify the difference between end customers for whom a commission of 80% of their transaction volume is paid, and those for whom a fee of 20% is paid [see his testimony on pages 70 and 72 of the minutes of the hearing of May 24, 2018], I do not believe that this matter in itself negates the commercial logic underlying the agreements between the plaintiffs and their clients. In addition, I will note that there is indeed no correspondence between the calculation document that was attached to one of the invoices, and accordingly the amount in the invoice consists of multiplying the number of calls in the amount of $1.55 and the basis of the consideration as set out in the agreement between the plaintiffs and the customers. However, given that this is a single document and in light of Mr. Michal's testimony that this is an internal calculation that did not serve as a basis for demanding the sum from the customers, I do not find that the aforesaid constitutes a basis for a relevant tangible concern.