A: I didn't contact him."
(p. 80, paras. 1-5 of the transcript)
There is no doubt that this letter, which opens with the sentence "on behalf of our client, Mr. Yair Segal", was sent at Segal's own opinion and request, since why would Adv. Liran Ohana pretend to represent Segal against his will? And if the letter was indeed written against Segal's opinion, why did Segal not contact Attorney Ohana and protest this conduct? This letter constitutes an admission by a party on the part of Segal (through his counsel) regarding the existence of a debt in the sum of NIS 5 million that he must repay, and it does not contain any allegation of coercion or threats. Hence, this is indeed an existing debt, and certainly not an "invented" or "fictitious" debt.
- It emerges from the aggregate that Segal did indeed receive, in various and strange ways, considerable sums of money from Baruch, in a manner that entitles Baruch to the restitution of millions of shekels (whether as a loan repayment or as part of his share of the profits). In any event, we will reiterate that the discussion at hand deals with the question of the very existence of a significant financial debt and not with the question of its exact scope. In respect of those funds to which Baruch was entitled, and for the purpose of settling his obligations to Baruch, Segal therefore signed the loan agreement, the consulting agreement and the additions to the loan agreement, by virtue of which the application before me was filed.
- Herbert's main arguments on this issue are that the loan agreement and the consultancy agreement, as well as the additions to the loan agreement and the bond that were signed as a result, are forged and fabricated documents that were signed by Segal under duress solely because of Baruch's improper threats. These arguments are to be rejected because they have no substance.
- Indeed, there is a great deal of difficulty in signing an agreement in which an incorrect date was deliberately stated (the loan agreement), as well as in signing a consultancy agreement for the provision of consulting services that was not genuinely intended to provide those services in practice, as detailed at length at the beginning of the discussion. At the same time, this does not determine that the agreements were drawn up in a vacuum and that they do not reflect a real debt. Segal, who was a full partner in the improper conduct, testified that he considers himself an experienced businessman (p. 94, paras. 8-9 of the transcript). In addition, correspondence between Baruch's attorney at the time and Segal from 01.11-31.10.2022 (Appendix 13 to the response to the response) reveals that Segal used to make comments regarding the agreements and make adjustments to them to his needs. Segal himself testified to this:
Q: No. And when you say, "I'll adjust the agreement," who's doing that work?