It was also found that even during the period when the Tiberias branch was closed without activity in the cannabis field, the petitioner continued to advertise, contrary to the law, encouraging the use of cannabis for non-medical purposes, as emerged from the video from November 5, 2023. It was also noted that 9.11 Provident funds for medical cannabis products were destroyed out of 10,350 provident funds reported by the pharmacist in charge in the annual report, while the branch was closed without a responsible pharmacist. In addition, 3.05 cannabis provident funds were found without a permit or stamp and signature of the responsible pharmacist. All the references in this regard were not transferred, but only after a court decision on the matter.
In the case of the branch in Hadera, the following findings were detailed (paragraph 4.c): failure to ensure proper documentation of cannabis dispensaries and a mismatch in the name of the pharmacist in charge of the issuer; issuance of medical cannabis delivery certificates were not documented in real time and as required; delivery certificates were signed with the signature of a pharmacist who was not present on the specified date; dispensations were found by the responsible pharmacist on the same date a few minutes apart at the Tiberias and Hadera branches; the branch was engaged in the shipment of medical cannabis products without the approval of the ICRC; a pharmacist was employed without the pharmacist's update the district, which is not even included in the names listed in the appendix of the license; Empty cannabis packages were found, despite the prohibition on any act of packaging or distributing cannabis products in the pharmacy; The branch's activity and the issuance of cannabis products continued even in the absence of an approved responsible pharmacist; Porte expressed concern about an inaccurate report regarding the change of the pharmacist in charge at the branch (paragraph 4.d).
Acts attributed directly to the petitioner (paragraphs 5.a-d): purchasing, possessing, and marketing prohibited utensils in the pharmacy in violation of the law; interfering with a public servant in the performance of his duties during the audit, including intimidation and threats against the audit staff; the petitioner's email announcement that he would not cooperate with audits by the district pharmacists, despite their authority to conduct those audits.