And later on:
"The lender also gave instructions to the librarian, and to the best of my recollection it was the request to issue a bank check for the sum of about ten thousand shekels plus minus, which was all the money in the account, i.e., to empty the account... He tried to give instructions to me and the bookkeeper on what to do with the customer's account, and the customer didn't speak. That's enough for me, for not, to avoid being exploited again and we encounter it a lot, especially with the Russian population, I decided at that moment not to allow the operation until we received clearer instructions from the legal department... And I blocked a credit card but I didn't block an account, and I explained what I did and why I did it, and I'm very much at peace with that" (p. 43 of the transcript, paras. 15-31. In addition, see p. 44 of the transcript, paras. 29-33, my emphases - R.A.).
And:
"... I explained that the client doesn't give instructions, doesn't explain what action, I can't get instructions from a third party, and in such cases we ask for a guardian. Until I receive instructions from the legal department on what to do, I can't authorize an action when the client doesn't give me instructions, I've explained very explicitly..." (p. 45 of the transcript, paras. 27-33).
In her cross-examination, Ms. Guttin reiterated her version that the plaintiff did not participate in the conversation and did not answer the questions asked, and in order to protect the client's interest and ensure that he would not be exploited by anyone, she canceled the credit card (p. 47 of the transcript, paras. 30-35, p. 48, paras. 27).
I got the impression that Ms. Guttin answered the questions asked with complete honesty and I found her testimony reliable and coherent.
I also found that the testimony of Ms. Michaela Horn was to be trusted, who testified that even in the meeting with her, the plaintiff did not take part in the conversation and did not respond to the questions asked: