Q: Do I understand from what you say that all those investments were transferred to one bank account registered in your name?
A: Nope. No... I don't have one bank account, I have several accounts - switch to the same number of accounts... You can look at them and examine them; I don't remember telling you by heart at the moment which account number.
Q: And when you say "I have accounts," they are all of them, you want to say, in your first name, or there are - when you say "mine", you are also referring to accounts that are - also in the name of a company that you own.
A: which may also be in the name of a company I own; You can pass by and see.
Q: You can pass by and see. If I understand what you are saying – because we know in the material, we will soon come to the conclusion that there are transfers at your request, to all kinds of parties – do I understand from your answer that you want to say: transfers to parties that are not "mine" (a gesture with his fingers as a kind of quotation marks) – this is in other matters. It's not about the project... Zerubavel. Is that how I understand what you say?
A: I guess so, but you have to look at the details. The answer is yes.
Q: No, but...
A: The answer is yes.
Q: The answer is yes.
A: Yes."
(p. 81, paras. 18-34; p. 82, paras. 1-20 of the transcript)
- Moreover, correspondence that was exchanged between Baruch's wife, Baruch's wife, and Segal testify that Segal certainly received considerable sums of money (and it does not matter that part of the engagement was made with the same person, because there is no dispute that she has no claim regarding Segal's personal and separate debt to her). For example, on February 28, 2019, she transferred the sum of $35,000 to Segal, and in response he admitted it (p. 81 of the response to the response). On March 12, 2019, a sum of €17,500 was transferred, and Segal again thanked him for this and even asked "when will you send the balance?" A day later, she sent another email with reference to the transfer of an additional sum of €17,500 (pp. 89, 92 in response to the reply). Copies of certificates were also attached, in Hungarian, regarding bank transfers to various accounts (which, according to Segal's testimony above, are linked to him in one way or another). It is clear that if Segal had not pocketed the same sums, he would not have thanked Baruch's wife for it . Nor was there any evidence of a real-time complaint by Segal that he did not receive the funds, which indicates that they were indeed received by him. Segal also paid Baruch the sum of NIS 100,000 as a "return on investment" as stated in the reference regarding a bank transfer to Baruch's account dated August 17, 2023 (Appendix 7 to the response). On the other hand, a check in the amount of NIS 300,000 whose repayment date is 30.1.2023 and another check in the amount of NIS 550,000 whose repayment date is 17.2.2023 that Segal drew at Baruch's orders, were invalidated due to the lack of sufficient coverage (see Appendices 9 and 11 to the application), and this is demanding and attests to the existence of an unpaid debt.
- To this, it should be added that in a letter from Segal's attorney at the time, Adv. Liran Ohana, dated May 7, 2024 (Appendix 20 to the response to the response), there is an explicit admission that Segal signed an agreement with Baruch in December 2022 for the repayment of a loan in the amount of NIS 5 million (a principal in the amount of NIS 3.5 million plus a profit from the sale in the amount of NIS 1.5 million), in a manner that corresponds in fact to the details of the loan agreement at the center of the present application (see paragraph 3 of the letter, Appendix 20 to the response to the response). By the way, Segal denied that Adv. Ohana represented him and claimed that he only represented Sea Tower (p. 79, paras. 15-23 of the minutes). Segal also claimed that he did not contact Adv. Ohana in connection with sending the letter "in his name", but that this claim is not convincing:
"Q: And apparently your lawyer, we will soon see, admits... Even though you don't exactly have to, you sign on yourself, the debt you want to deny. You, following receiving the response, turned to Attorney Ohana and told him... "Robbery and wreckage, what do you write in the name of letters? You don't represent me at all"? Did you contact him?