Forgery and theft of checks
- The defendant claimed that the checks were stolen and forged by the plaintiff and at the same time claimed that she signed the checkbut did not write and fill out their contents.
It seems that there is no dispute that the amount of the checks was filled out by the plaintiff, but according to the plaintiff, the checks were given to her with the defendant's consent and initiative.
- The claim of theft and forgery of checks raised by the defendant underwent upheavals. At first, the defendant abandoned the claim in the framework of the hearing of the objection regarding the check in the amount of ILS 1.6 million in opposition to the execution of the deed 19509-05-17. However, at a later stage, when the hearings in the two cases were consolidated, the argument was again raised in the affidavit of the main witness on her behalf without taking permission to do so.
As a result, the plaintiff requested that the sections relating to this claim be deleted from the affidavit since the defendant had already waived the claim.
In the decision of March 20, 2019, it was determined that the affidavit would remain as it is, and that in view of the difference in the agreements in the two objections, the decision should not prevent the plaintiff from raising her claims regarding the allegations of forgery and the taking of the checks, including for the expansion of the front in a distinct way with respect to each of the objections.
In its summary, the defendant once again abandoned the claim and focused on the claims regarding the completion of the sums without her knowledge or permission, the failure of consideration and the plaintiff's breach of the agreement between the parties. In these circumstances, there was room at this stage to reject the argument.
At the same time, in view of the seriousness of the claim, I will address briefly and note that on the merits of the matter, even if the defendant had not abandoned this claim, the testimony of Dr. Dan and the evidence submitted show that in any case there is no basis for the claim of theft and forgery of the checks that are the subject of the proceedings before me.
- At first , the defendant argued that the signed checks were placed in the joint clinic for the purpose of paying taxes and social security for her business as needed, and that the checks were stolen from the clinic and filled out without her knowledge or consent, taking advantage of her innocence. According to her, she first learned of this only after the check for ILS 1.6 million was presented to the bank on March 7, 2017, and a complaint was filed with the police regarding the theft.
As to the check in the amount of ILS 1.6 million (in opposition to the execution of the deed 19509-05-17), Dr. Dan testified in the hearing of the objection that she did not claim that the plaintiff stole the checks, but only that the checks were stolen to her. In addition, she confirmed that she gave the plaintiff checkbooks signed by her without sums and that the plaintiff would have filled out the checks with her knowledge and also without her knowledge (in the transcript, pp. 1, 19-22 and 2, 11). This testimony in itself omits the basis for the claim that the checks were forged and stolen.