In addition, the Bank refers to the fact that the plaintiffs referred to their customers' end customers as "retail customers" - a reference that is incorrect and even worse, because it has become clear that these customers are, in some cases, residents of Muslim and Arab countries defined as enemy states or high-risk countries. It also refers to the fact that in the demand for a license of UFX TRADE, an invalid license was transferred to it, and as for the companies Rialentco and MPF, only printouts were transferred from the CYSEC website, from which it is not clear whether the licenses of these companies are valid. The bank further pointed out that contrary to the declaration according to which the certificates of the compliance officers of the plaintiffs' customers were attached, such certificates were not attached.
With regard to Mr. Toledano's account, the bank first argues that the plaintiffs' accounts should be linked to Mr. Toledano's account, given that there is no dispute about his relations with the plaintiffs and that he receives dividends from the plaintiffs' parent company - Paragon E X. Moreover, according to the bank, Mr. Toledano was unable to clarify the source of the funds he sought to receive into his account, and therefore, according to the bank, a crisis of trust was created between him and the bank.
In summary, the bank argues that the plaintiffs' actions, as well as their refusal to provide information in order to allay the bank's concerns, led to a crisis of confidence that makes it difficult to continue the proper management of the plaintiffs' accounts, and argues that for this reason as well, its decision to close the accounts constitutes a reasonable refusal to provide service.
The Bank also points out that the standard of proof that the Bank is required to meet in order to substantiate its suspicions is relatively low, and that even the position of the regulators, as submitted in this case, is sufficient to support its position. The Bank further points out that in accordance with the case law, the judicial review that will be directed at its decisions is similar to judicial review directed at an administrative authority, and accordingly it argues that given that its decision does not deviate from the realm of reasonableness, there is no room to intervene in it.