An examination of the complaint submitted to the police for forgery and theft of checks shows that the report was about the theft that occurred from Dr. Dan's home - which is inconsistent with the version that the checks were stolen from the clinic's offices - and moreover, it is a complaint submitted to the police on March 9, 2017, regarding the forgery and theft of checks in the sum of ILS 2,000 and not the amounts of the checks in question (Appendix A to the objection).
When Dr. Dan was asked to explain in the objection hearing the connection between the complaint to the police and the theft of the check in the amount of ILS 1.6 million, she avoided providing a direct response and testified that she was not sure that the plaintiff had stolen and that she did not claim that the plaintiff had stolen but that her checks had been stolen. She also testified that she did not claim that all the checks were stolen, but that she had one checkbook and ILS 2,000 in cash. At the same time, she testified that the plaintiff received a large number of checks from her without specifying amounts in them (in the transcript, pp. 1, 15-20) and later testified that there was a theft of checks, but she did not know and was not sure which checks were stolen, and claimed that she gave checks to the plaintiff and that they were used without her knowledge and committed money laundering (in the transcript, pp. 3, paras. 7-9).
Thus, her testimony also shows that there is no basis for the claim of theft and forgery of the checks.
- As for the checks in the amount of ILS 30,000 and ILS 14,000 (in a civil case in a fast-track procedure 19573-05-17) - there was no explicit waiver by the defendant of the claim of forgery and theft, and this was not excluded from the objection that was received. In any event, I am of the opinion that the defendant does not have the claim in connection with these checks as well, for the reasons below.
First, the fact that the defendant herself claimed, together with the claim of forgery, that she herself was a signatory to the checks, is sufficient to dismiss the basis for the claim of forgery of the checks.