The plaintiffs further claim that the bank also has the laconic closure notice that was sent to the plaintiffs, which, contrary to the law, did not properly detail the reasons for which the plaintiffs' accounts were closed, all in contravention of the provision of section 9 of the Supervisor of Banks' Directives No. 432. In this context, the plaintiffs further claim that the bank is prevented from raising any claim that was not made in the framework of the cancellation notice - that is, it is prevented from raising the vast majority of the claims raised by it in the proceeding.
As stated, according to the plaintiffs, as detailed, the bank, which was motivated by its purpose to close the account, did not examine the documents that were transferred to it and did not even reflect to its customers the need for documents or additional information, as well as clarifications regarding the doubts that arose in the hearts of its employees. The plaintiffs claim that this conduct of the bank, in addition to being improper as detailed above in a manner that leads to its nullity, was also sufficient to prevent the plaintiffs - on the merits of the matter - from removing all of the bank's suspicions and concerns, as was done, when they were given an opportunity, during the legal proceeding. Thus, and in this context, the plaintiffs point out that in the framework of the legal proceeding, the claims that the plaintiffs' clients deal in binary options were dismissed, the claim that Mr. Dennis de Young is a Dutch politician was rejected, the claim that the plaintiffs' clients are companies owned by Paragon E X was rejected, it became clear that the plaintiffs' clients were acting lawfully, documents and declarations were presented attesting to the lawful payment of tax by all the relevant parties, including the plaintiffs' clients. It became clear that the plaintiffs' clients do not have commercial relations with Iran, as was claimed, and it was clarified that there was no connection between the suspicions attributed to Mr. Toledano and the plaintiffs' accounts - all of which became clear in retrospect that served as the basis for the closure notice, but in the framework of the legal proceedings and when the plaintiffs were able to deal with them, it was clarified that they had no substance.