Given the flawed proceedings that took place in their case, the plaintiffs claim that the law of the closure decision given by the bank is null and void, whether judicial review is taken against the bank's decision, similar to the decision of an administrative authority, and all the more so if regular judicial review is taken against it.
In more detail, the plaintiffs further claim that the decision regarding the closure of the accounts was made by the bank as early as November 2016, without any grounds for closing the accounts at that time, without any change in the activity of the accounts that were conducted in the same format for years prior to that date, without a preliminary discussion between the bank's employees themselves, and moreover with the customers, all based solely on a publication in the media regarding the conduct of investigations that were conducted against Mr. Toledano and Mr. Saar Pilosof (who served on the relevant dates as an authorized signatory to the plaintiffs) as well as on the whim of the bank's employee - Mrs. Sigal Sadi Mantin, who was the one who made the decision regarding the closure of the account. In this last context, I will note at this stage that the plaintiffs refer to the bank's failure from the testimony of this witness (as well as other witnesses who were partners in the trial and the matters between them and the bank), and this, despite the central role it played in making the decision to close their accounts, they claim that it is sufficient to establish evidentiary presumptions that act against the bank's version, with regard to the reasons that were the basis of the decision.
The plaintiffs further claim that after the decision was made - which was not reflected to the plaintiffs in real time - the bank did everything in its power to justify its decision and create an artificial infrastructure in order to enable its implementation. Including, according to them, although prior to the date of the decision, in the months of May to July 2016, they transferred documents that were required by the bank and which satisfied its opinion and evidence - the bank allowed them to continue their activity, as of November 2016, when the bank made a decision, without any real justification, to close the accounts, the bank again demanded additional documents - some of which were irrelevant. Some of them were given to him in the past, and some were new and different documents from those requested, after the documents that were requested had already been invented. According to them, as part of the legal proceeding, it became clear that in some cases, the bank's clerks did not hand over the documents that were produced to the compliance authorities at all, a failure that indicates that there was no real intention to examine the documents that were invented. The plaintiffs further point out that the warning letters sent to them by the bank included data that is indisputably incorrect, and the bank knew about this - including the fact that as part of the alleged problematic activity that the bank pointed out in its letters (and in this regard they refer in particular to a warning letter dated January 18, 2017 that was sent with respect to Toledano's account) it was claimed that there were significant cash deposits - an activity that even the bank's employees confirmed did not exist at all. The plaintiffs also point to attempts to create grounds for closure out of nowhere, including examining the possibility of closing the account due to alleged threats - claims that the bank did not reiterate in the framework of the proceeding, and its failure indicates that this never happened. The plaintiffs claim that all of the aforementioned indications are sufficient to indicate that the bank made a decision to close the accounts and then acted in order to create justification and grounds for closing the accounts, all without having a real willingness to continue providing service to the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs claim that the bank's decision is null and void.