A: Let me continue.
Q: But we're not in - -
The Court: You say you didn't transfer money to him between 2009 and 2011?
A: I did not pass it on to him, in any way, and I did not know and I did not pass it on. When he brought this document - - "
(p. 13, paras. 23-27 of the transcript)
- Thus, it also became clear, only after Herbert's reply was submitted, that contrary to what was stated in the application, the loan agreement was not signed at all in 2011 as recorded in its title, but only in 2022: "The same agreement (the loan agreement – H.B.) It was signed in December 2022, shortly before the signing of the first addendum (which was prepared in advance in order to "weld" it to that agreement)...(Paragraph 44 of the response to the reply; See also p. 11, paras. 12-15 of the transcript). In other words, outwardly, the parties presented a false representation as if the loan agreement for which Herbert had secured her shares was signed at a much earlier date than on the date on which it was actually concluded. The parties also stated the false date of the loan agreement in the bond submitted to the Registrar of Companies (see the title of the bond attached as Appendix 2 to the application).
- Not only that. As part of the proceeding, it was discovered that the "consultation" agreement signed between the parties was not a consultation agreement at all. Although this agreement was signed on December 20, 2022 as stated in it (which is not self-evident given the way in which the people operating in action moved), it is not an "agreement for strategic consulting services" (as its title is called) but rather a contract intended to anchor Segal's financial obligations to Baruch, and nothing more. Thus, for example, it was mentioned in the agreement that some of the consulting services had already been provided prior to his signature (ibid., in section 6), although there is no dispute that Baruch never "advised" staff in connection with the Beit Shemesh project (see p. 47, paras. 24-25 of the minutes). The agreement further states that even if Baruch is not required to provide consulting services in the future, Segal is still obligated to pay the consultation fee in full (ibid., in section 7). The consultation agreement is in fact the result of meetings and correspondence between the parties at the end of 2022, and its main purpose is to "convert" Segal's existing debt to Baruch into housing units that will be purchased for Baruch in the real estate project in Beit Shemesh, as Baruch explained in his interrogation:
"Q: You told us earlier, when you referred to that agreement, to the consulting services agreement, that it was supposed to... To reflect an additional consideration, from Mr. Segal to you, in the form of rights in land units in a project in the city of Beit Shemesh. Right?