It has not escaped my notice that the plaintiff's counsel claimed in his summaries (paragraph 178) that the statements of account were not authentic and that they were manipulated by the defendant. I did not find any substance in the argument because it was made in vain and without any evidentiary basis, and for the first time in the framework of the summaries.
The plaintiff himself, the owner of the bank account, refrained from testifying before me, even though he appeared for the evidentiary hearing and was present in the courtroom, so that he could not be confronted with the actions detailed in the account statements. This refusal acts in accordance with his duty and strengthens the defendant's version (see the book of the scholar Yaakov Kedmi on the Evidence, Part IV, 1891 (combined and updated edition, 2009)), especially when the plaintiff is a litigant (see Civil Appeal 795/99 François v. Pozis , IsrSC 55 (3) 107 (2000), as well as Kedmi's aforementioned book, at p. 1908)).
It was argued that the plaintiff did not testify only because of his medical condition at the time of the hearing (see p. 1 of the transcript). However, no medical certificate or reference was presented to support this. The plaintiff's refusal to testify raises the suspicion that he was concerned about his testimony and his exposure to cross-examination, especially in light of the defendant's claims regarding his cognitive state and his inability to communicate and understand the nature of the actions that were requested to be performed, and we will expand on this later.
- The prosecution's witnesses, H.H. Timothy and Tatiana Vishnevsky, testified that they were not involved in the management of the bank account (Timothy's interrogation - p. 30 of the transcript, paras. 9-23, interrogation of Tatiana - p. 38 of the transcript, paras. 12-16).
The plaintiff's claim that his grandson was a power of attorney in the bank account (paragraph 9 of the statement of claim) was not proven at all. Therefore, these witnesses cannot shed light on the question of whether the plaintiff's bank account was indeed blocked as claimed.