On the merits, according to the defendants, the project of creating a new cryptocurrency - which the defendant tried to promote - has nothing to do with Israel. This is a venture that was born and practiced in the United States, the mining of the coin had to rely on energy produced in the state of Arkansas in the United States, the licenses and permits were supposed to be given in the United States (and were finally given in Gibraltar) and even the mining of the coin itself should have been in the United States. It should be noted that all of these facts even arise from the letter of claim itself. According to the defendants, even if the plaintiffs joined an American venture, which they later transferred to Gibraltar, the fact that Israeli citizens participate in the venture abroad does not make it an Israeli venture. This is mainly in view of the fact that in the first place, and even during the execution of the project, there was not even a small part in the project that was supposed to take place in Israel.
It was also claimed that the ZOOM call described in the lawsuit was also conducted while the defendant and other investors were in the United States, and it was clear to all the participants of the meeting that the venture was planned as an American venture, on U.S. soil, without any hint that the venture was connected to Israel. It was argued that the fact that the plaintiffs or some of the investors (if there were any) participated in the Zoom meeting from elsewhere in the world, does not make the venture a non-American venture.
Moreover, the defendants reiterate that an examination of the statement of claim shows that all the material connections in this claim exist outside of Israel, including: the defendant resides permanently in the United States, defendant 2 is an American company and defendant 3 is a company from Gibraltar; All of the actions that are the subject of the lawsuit took place outside of Israel, without exception.
The defendants further claim that the plaintiffs are mixing a different kind of sex when they base their claim, inter alia, on Regulation 168 of the Regulations. This is because Regulation 168 deals entirely with the heresy of the authority by virtue of an invention outside the boundaries of the state, i.e., a plaintiff who received the court's approval to produce a court statement outside the boundaries, and against him a defendant who received the document by invention outside the boundaries and denies the court's authority. It was argued that in the present case, the claim before us was not invented outside the scope at all and therefore there is no relevance to the said regulation.