A letter from Herzog Fox & Neeman dated July 17, 2017 was also attached, stating that Paragon EX does not deal with binary options. I will note that in the course of his interrogation, Mr. Michal was asked why the letter was not signed by a specific lawyer but by the law firm (similar to letters from the same law firm whose contents were cited above) and his answer was that the bank did not contact and asked for the name of a specific lawyer and that if it had requested, a name and signature would have been added [see his testimony of May 24, 2018, on page 95, lines 27-31].
In addition, (as part of Appendix 24 to Mr. Michal's affidavit) the attorneys of the client companies were presented, and accordingly the clients do not deal with binary options. Moreover, in this context, Mr. Shinitsky testified on behalf of the plaintiffs in his affidavit in paragraph 17 that the plaintiffs' clients do not deal with binary options, and when asked what the source of his knowledge was, he replied that he was responsible for all the marketing materials that were issued for these companies, and that none of them was ever offered a binary option [see his testimony from the hearing of June 12, 2018, at page 248].
Moreover, it became clear that the bank's suspicion regarding activity in binary options was based on evidence that was not evidence - so the bank relied on P/3, which an examination of it shows that this is a page with information about binary options, however, the name of UFX is mentioned on this page in a side frame detailing leading companies in the field of forex. The bank also relied on what anonymous people - whose names were not mentioned - told Mr. Lotem [see Lotem's testimony at pp. 45-47].
The bank's representative, Mr. Lotem, also confirmed that Mr. Dennis de Young testified in a parallel proceeding that he was not a Dutch politician, and although the bank's representative refused to remove the suspicion that Mr. Dennis de Young was a politician, he confirmed that he did not contact the plaintiffs to clarify this suspicion [see his testimony of May 15, 2018, on page 22], and that the bank abandoned this claim in its summaries.
- In addition, the suspicions related to the lawful taxation of Paragon EX, the Toledano Dividend and the plaintiffs' client companies were removed, inter alia, from the fact that the companies were incorporated in the OFF SHORE countries .
Before detailing the documents that have been forwarded regarding the clarification and removal of these suspicions, I find it premature to determine, as a rule, with regard to the approvals of the accountant and attorneys that were invented by the plaintiffs, that the bank's requirement to obtain certificates in the framework of which the lawyers or accountants declare the information from their personal knowledge is unreasonable as it is inconsistent with the instructions of the Banking Supervision Department, as well as the rules of ethics of accountants and lawyers. Thus, in the framework of the Banking Supervision Department's instructions of January 4, 2018 [which was filed as Exhibit 6], it was explicitly determined that with regard to accountant certificates, which are required by the banks as part of relevant references for the customer's lawful activity, certificates will be issued in accordance with the types of certificates that an accountant is permitted to give. With regard to such approvals, it was explicitly clarified that: "The format of 'approval' is intended to attest that a certain figure corresponds to what is stated in certain documents and/or any records. In this format, the accountant does not certify the adequacy and/or correctness of the data themselves, but only their suitability, and therefore the documents and/or records on which he relied on the basis of his approval will also be noted in the approval."