In the margins, the bank refers to the fact that Toiga Media has an additional bank account, at Bank Hapoalim, and therefore claims that its closure of its account does not lead to the cessation of its activity. The bank further argues that Toledano sought to close the account of Lihat, and therefore that with regard to this account, it is not an initiative of the bank in any case.
In light of all of the above, the bank argues that the closure decision is lawful and therefore the claim should be dismissed.
- The plaintiffs, on the other side of the fence, begin by arguing that in recent years there has indeed been a change in the obligations imposed on the banks, inter alia, as a result of the legislation intended to prevent money laundering and terrorism, debts due to which the "rules of the game" have been changed and the banks and their customers have been led to "territories that have not yet been mapped." Thus, according to them, in the past, the starting point with regard to the relationship between the banking corporation and its customers was that the bank is a dual entity similar to an administrative authority, which is interested in increasing the mass of its customers and which "has nothing of its own". In accordance with this starting point, it was argued, the judicial review that was exercised with regard to the examination of the decisions of the banking corporations was similar to the manner in which the court transfers administrative authorities under its control - that is, one that is covered under the presumption of correctness and that the audit to which will apply only where it deviates from the realm of reasonableness. The problem, according to the plaintiffs, the debts imposed on the banks in the framework of the anti-money laundering and terrorism legislation, and in particular the huge fines imposed on some of them and the investigations by the US Department of Justice that expose their employees to sanctions, have led to the banks preferring not to deal with the pile of tasks involved in accounts that deviate from the usual framework that cause them a "headache" and to announce the closure of accounts wherever red flags are raised regarding their activity, all without examining whether the red flags are sufficient to establish suspicions of prohibited activity and whether it is not possible to deny these suspicions. According to the plaintiffs, such a material change also requires a change in the system and manner of conducting audit of the banks, so that the banks will no longer enjoy the presumption of soundness as well as the range of reasonableness, and accordingly, their decisions will be subject to regular judicial review.
From the general to the specific, the plaintiffs claim that in the case pending the court's decision, the bank failed to prove that the decision to close the plaintiffs' accounts was reasonable on the basis of the information and facts that it had in mind at the time the decision was made, and moreover, the bank failed and breached its duties both in accordance with the law, in accordance with the proper policy and the duty of trust towards the plaintiffs - its customers, while there was no proper procedure towards the plaintiffs. before making the decision regarding the closure of the accounts and even afterwards. The plaintiffs further claim that in any event, a decision regarding the closure of the account is the harshest sanction in the "toolbox" and therefore taking it, instead of taking the other options - such as - control and reporting - is disproportionate. In this latter context, the plaintiffs further claim that the approach that the bank is directed to act according to is a risk-based approach (RBA), according to which the bank must rate different levels of risk and allocate resources, in accordance with their existence and ranking, for the purpose of monitoring and controlling customers. According to them, as a tool for determining risk levels, the bank must identify red flags, but contrary to the bank's approach, according to which the existence of these is sufficient to lead to a refusal to take actions - quite the opposite - the bank must allow the actions, monitor them in a beneficial manner, monitor them and report them to the authorities in appropriate cases.