Ms. G.'Nipper: I talk to him regularly.
.....
The woman's counsel: What exactly is your role in Alabama?
Ms. G.'Nipper: I'm a director.
The woman's counsel: Are there any other directors in Alabama?
Ms. G.'Nipper: No, just me.
The woman's counsel: Since when have you been a director in Alabama?
Ms. G.'Nipper: I think since 2015.
The woman's counsel: When is a taxi [Asked in English'How to Taxi' - Y. S.] As a trustee of the Alaska Foundation?
Ms. G.'Nipper: All of us, all the other previous trustees, were asked to take upon ourselves allegiance and be appointed accordingly.
The woman's counsel: Who approached you and asked you to be faithful to the Alaska Foundation?
Ms. G.'Nipper: [The man] turned to me." (See transcript 19.7.2017, p. 44 s. 34-5 and p. 45 s. 1-3, translated from English).
- Jennifer even testified in her interrogation that no one has any role in the Alabama company (see transcript of July 19, 2017, p. 51, paras. 12-15). This is despite legal proceedings that took place against the Alabama company in Israel, in which the man signed affidavits on behalf of the Alabama company, by virtue of his position as the company's investment advisor - a subject that by virtue of her position as the sole director of the company she should have known. Even when confronted with this information, Ms. Jennifer reiterated her answer that she did not know that the man was acting as a consultant to the Alabama company (see transcript of July 19, 2017, p. 51, paras. 16-21). This contradiction between Ms. Jennifer's answers and the man's explicit statement that he serves as an investment advisor to an Alabama company - "I will note that in view of my status as a beneficiary of the Alaska Trust, as well as as an investment advisor for an Alabama company, I have, of course, contact Ms. Jennifer and I make sure to keep her updated, as much as possible, on the status of the trust" (see para. 117 of the man's main testimony affidavit, emphasis not in the original) - indicates that Mrs. Jennifer was doing the man's bidding, and is even consistent with the rest of the evidence that was brought as to the true nature of the Alabama company, i.e., for the purpose of a fictitious registration of the residence, as cited above.
- The absolute identity between Alabama and the man even emerges from additional evidence presented by the woman, which paints a clear picture that the company serves as a kind of 'private bank' for the man. The man reported to the U.S. tax authorities on a personal report form (FBAR) that he held and had an interest in Alabama's bank accounts (see Appendix 35 to the woman's summaries).
- In this regard, the man was asked during his interrogation and first replied that he did not know where the Alabama company currently maintains a bank account:
"The woman's counsel: Now I want to ask you about AlabamaYes. Where Alabama I have a bank account, what is the account number, what is the branch number?