The wife's counsel: I tell you that this name has been used for many years, and there was no confusion in it.
Ms. Jennifer: That's your opinion. We are the ones who have worked with these trusts for a long time and the decision whether it is confusing or not is our decision.
The wife's counsel: [The woman] There was not one of the nods of Nevada?
Mrs. G.'Nipper: Before that, it seemed to me Neighbor.
The woman's counsel: And is she today enjoying Washington or Tennessee Which are the new names?
Mrs. G.'Nipper: Anonymous" (See the minutes of the hearing of July 16, 2020, pp. 460, 2-24, pp. 461-464, p. 465, 1-11, all in English translation).
- As emerges from Ms. Jennifer's vague answers, the change of the names of the trusts is nothing more than a function to blur the man's fingerprint as the true owner of the trust and/or to conceal the existence of the trust from the eyes of the woman, who would have benefited from the name change.
- Therefore, I determine that the woman has proved, far beyond the balance of probability required in a civil trial, that the man owns the aforementioned seven trusts (in their names that change from time to time).
C.3.3 - The value of the parties' joint property:
- The woman presented a valuation of the trusts in which the man confirmed his ownership (their names changed from time to time: the Alaska Foundation, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington) through documents she located.
- According to data that the man himself provided to the Florida Trust Management Company, the woman proved that the value of three of the trusts she was able to locate related documents - the Alaska, Arizona and Nevada Foundation - amounted to about $42 million in 2011 (see Appendix 20 to the woman's summaries). It should be noted that these are only three trusts out of the extensive portfolio of assets that the man claimed managed during their life together.
- In addition, the woman located a number of financial statements from the Vermont trust management company (whose services were hired by the man instead of the Oregon Foundation) bearing the man's signature, which show that the value of two trusts, Arizona and Nevada, including the subsidiaries held by them, was a cumulative total of $19,578,858 in 2012 and $24,126,636 in 2015 (see Appendix 54 and Appendix 21 to the wife's summaries, respectively). In addition, the woman located additional Vermont financial statements from 2014 detailing the value of three additional subsidiaries held by the Nevada Trust (valued at $9,830,584) and 11 additional subsidiaries held by the Arizona Trust (valued at $11,241,131) - combined, the value of the additional subsidiaries as of 2014 was a cumulative total of $21,071,715 (see Appendix 55 to the woman's summaries).
- Therefore, in the absence of any other evidence on the part of the man, who, as stated, did not provide any information, exposed any card or presented any evidence on his behalf as to the amount of the family capital that was transferred to the dispute (other than his repeated statement that there was none) - I found that the woman's assessment of the value of the parties' joint property prior to the outbreak of the dispute should be accepted and it should be determined that she is entitled to half of it - both by virtue of reversing the burden of bringing evidence. Both by virtue of the doctrine of evidentiary damage, given that it was proven that the man was able to prevent the damage and he chose not to, and ended with the ruling according to the assessment tool. Each of these and all of them together are now in my possession and allow me to reach a decision.
- In my decision of August 21, 2019, I reiterated the basic concepts according to which the man has an absolute and unqualified obligation to disclose, as part of his affidavit, full disclosure of all his assets and rights of any kind whatsoever. I also warned the man that if he did not do so, the woman would be entitled to make any claim in the matter - and she did so accordingly. As is well known, in the absence of sufficient data, the court is entitled to make use of the estimation tool and rule in the best manner.
With regard to the aforesaid jurisdiction of the court, see also in Tax Appeal 7172/12 Anonymous v. Anonymous (published in Nevo: December 24, 2012) and the references therein: "The Applicant objects against the Family Court's determination to determine part of the consideration he received for his occupations and which he concealed from the Respondent, by way of an estimate. It is difficult to reconcile this argument, which is nothing but innocence, since the applicant did not disclose to the court data regarding his income. Estimation is a tool that is not inappropriate in such a way, rulings according to the estimate are common and are used in various areas of law."
- It is clear that under the circumstances of this case it would be patently unreasonable to believe that the appointment of an expert would help discover the value of the companies and the value of the tax havens. Needless to say, the court did not receive a single document from the man or any other information that could indicate the real rights of the man and/or those tax havens and/or corporations, so it would be unreasonable to hope that what has not been done for about nine years will be done through the appointment of experts, let alone when there are no companies registered in Israel.
- In view of all of the above, I see no alternative but to make use of the aforementioned estimation tool, taking into account the details of the information provided to the court, taking into account the value assessed at various times, taking into account the man's conduct and the other matters that arose in the course of the proceeding before me.
- As stated above, the man clearly concealed the mass of assets that he and the woman shared, and all that is known is only from documents that the woman managed to obtain. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that there are many other rights under the man's control that remain unknown in the course of the proceeding before me. Let us recall that this is not a man who held control of a single company or even two companies, but rather a man who made use of many companies, quite a few tax havens, in various places in the world, so that it would not be entirely unreasonable to claim that there is still more hidden than revealed.
- In order to try to trace the value of the trusts (including the companies registered under them), I have found that the following estimation calculation should be made in accordance with the known data on the value of two of the trusts, as presented above:
| Year | Name of the Trusts |