Q: That's what you claim.
A: What is "that's what I claim"? Facts.
Q: You say: It's... Let's call it in the language of the street, white silver.
A: It's not white money.
Q: White is legal.
A: Definitely white. It's all white.
A: Can I withdraw cash---"
(p. 28, paras. 18-33; p. 29, paras. 1-11 of the transcript)
- This is therefore a systematic, planned and orderly conduct by Baruch and Segal, who refrained from transferring funds in an acceptable and documented manner of checks or bank transfers, due to considerations that are reserved for them. Segal himself testified on this issue in his interrogation:
"Q: I also refer you to Appendix 9; It's a lot of documents, we'll try to do it as... Example. For example, on page 65, there is a correspondence of you with Baa, who says that she gave Mr. Kapor ten thousand dollars. Who is Mr. Kapoor?
A: One of the... Employees who are in Hungary.
Q: One of the employees, you say... Yours who are in Hungary.
A: Not mine, but... A guy who works in Hungary. Not my personal employee.
Q: But you asked him to get money for you?
A: You have an email here. Yes.
The Court: That's why he asks you.
A: Yes.
Q: Now, on page 66 for example - you confirm here - that, there is white on white here, as in the poem, but you can still see... S... That you got twenty thousand dollars from Hili. In your correspondence with Baa, right?
A: That's right.
The court: Tell me, is this how money is transferred?
A: Your Honorable Judge. There are calculations that have been made with Moon for many years - as a friend, out of the... Considerations that exist between us. Some of the things were done in this way, of the transfer – I paid, I gave; I paid on the spot, I got a refund. There are things that belong to the investment. There are different things; That's how we do it between friends...
The Court: No, I ask: Cash, that's how you give it in your hand?
A: There was no law against cash at the time."
(p. 87, paras. 11-30 of the transcript)
- Let us now turn to the two main questions that require a decision in our case. First, we will examine whether Segal has a debt to Baruch that has not yet been repaid and which justifies enforcing the lien. If the answer to this question is yes, we will discuss the question of the validity of that lien, in light of the claims that it was allegedly done illegally and without authority.
The very existence of a debt
- In view of the conduct of the parties described at length above, it is difficult to determine in the framework of this judgment precisely the amount of the debt that Segal owed Baruch. We are dealing with those who conducted a complicated relationship of transactions and refinancing of loans time after time, during which financial transfers were made in an indirect way by Baruch El Segal. Moreover, most of the documents intended to prove the exact amount of the debt (except for the bond, the consulting agreement, and the additions to the loan agreement) were attached for the first time to Baruch's response to the response. At the same time, for the purpose of deciding the application before me, which deals with the enforcement of the lien that was registered on Herbert's rights in the shares of Sauda, there is no need to determine the exact amount of the debt, since there is no doubt that there is indeed a substantial financial debt of Segal towards Baruch. Arguments and disputes relating to the exact amount of the debt are not grounds for delaying the realization of a mortgaged property (Civil Appeal Authority 6764/02 Ezra v. HaMashbir Agencies in a Tax Appeal (Nevo, September 9, 2002); Civil Appeal Authority 7946/12 Levian v. Union Bank / Carmel Mortgage Bank Ltd., at paragraph 6 (Nevo 15.11.2012)). Thus, for example, in the matter of Civil Appeal Authority 9444/06 S.A. Yedid Levy in Tax Appeal v. Union Bank of Israel in Tax Appeal (Nevo 19.11.2006), it was held that:
"For, it is a well-known rule that claims relating to the amount of the debt are not grounds for termination of execution proceedings, in light of the harm to the value of the pledge collateral..."