Thus, according to the bank, there remained a lack of clarity as to why the activities of the two plaintiffs were split into two different companies - Twiga Media and Twiga Online. However, first of all, this question was raised for the first time in the framework of the legal proceeding, and I will note in a parenthetical article that in the framework of this article, an answer was given by Mr. Toledano that arises with the line of logic, and accordingly Twiga Online was initially established in order to provide automatic optimization services for campaigns relating to Internet traffic, and when it failed to reach the goals set for it, it was decided to establish a support center in Haifa in which minorities would be employed and a grant would be received from the Chief Scientist [see his testimony on pages 124-135]. Moreover, even as much as there remained uncertainty, the bank did not clarify what concrete suspicions regarding money laundering could stem from this split.
Thus, as to the questions of why two types of agreements were signed with the clients and as to the basis for receiving consideration from the customers - all of these questions were raised before the plaintiffs for the first time in the course of the legal proceeding, and therefore, it is clear that they were not given the comprehensive opportunity to clarify them and provide them with a comprehensive response. Moreover, even in this context, it was not clarified what the concrete suspicion relating to money laundering that may stem from such activity.
The bank also pointed out that it was not presented with the agreement in the framework of which Paragon EX sold the software to the plaintiffs' customers - but that this document was not required prior to the legal proceeding.
IN ADDITION, THE BANK POINTED OUT THAT NO VALID LICENSE OF UFX TRADE WAS PRESENTED , YES, THAT IT WAS NOT CLARIFIED WHY THE ACTIVITY OF UFX TRADE WAS REPLACED BY THE ACTIVITY OF UFX GLOBAL - EVEN THESE CLAIMS (EXCEPT FOR THE MATTER OF THE VALID LICENSE FOR UFX TRADE) WERE RAISED BY THE BANK FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LEGAL PROCEEDING, AND MOREOVER, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE TRANSFER OF ACTIVITY FROM A COMPANY THAT DOES NOT HAVE A VALID LICENSE, A company incorporated elsewhere and which has a valid license, executed by a person who is the sole shareholder in both companies, requires an explanation, since it seems clear that this is a change whose reason speaks for itself and is consistent with the line of logic.
- In light of the aforesaid, I determine that in the framework of the legal proceeding, documents were provided by the plaintiffs in order to remove, to the extent required and expected of a banking corporation, suspicions that arose in his heart, within the framework of the duties imposed on him in accordance with the law. As such, I do not believe that even after the legal proceedings have taken place, the bank has reasonable grounds to refuse to provide the plaintiffs with a lawful banking service.
Two notes in the margins:
- In the margins of my decision, I find it necessary to relate to two issues to which the parties have devoted a wide range of topics, and whose place has been deducted in the framework of the extensive discussion above, not because they have disappeared from my view, but because in view of the discussion as detailed above, it seems that there is no need or place to address them.
These words are directed first to the dispute between the parties as to the relevant date for examining the bank's decision and whether it is November 2016 or March 2017, and secondly to the bank's claims regarding the crisis in the relationship of trust between it and the plaintiffs.