E4 The plaintiff did not consistently define which companies were included in the partnership, nor even its business and duration.
- The plaintiff was inconsistent in his versions as to the identity of the companies that he believed belonged to the partnership.
- In the statement of claim, the plaintiff did not clearly list the companies included in the partnership: in paragraph 16 he claimed that Odan Development was included in the partnership; In paragraph 18 he added that Edgar was also included in the partnership; Section 61 indicates that the partnership included the companies included in the amended indictment - that is, in addition to Odan Services and Edgar, also C.A.Z., Hasson Gesher, Odan Services and Formica Source Ltd. His counsel made similar remarks at the pre-trial hearing on February 1, 2023.
- In paragraph 6 of his affidavit, the plaintiff claimed that "the partnership is, among other things, all the defendants and all the companies that appear in the indictment."
- However, in his interrogation, the plaintiff gave a different version with respect to the source of Formica Ltd., which is included in the amended indictment, namely, according to the prosecution and his affidavit is part of the partnership:
The Honorable Judge Shaked: Was the source of the Formica in the partnership? Yes or no?
The witness, Mr. Peretz: No.
(p. 95 of the transcript, paras. 5-6).
Later, he changed again on his behalf and narrowed down the list of alleged companies in the partnership:
The Honorable Judge Shaked: ...So we have 4 companies, Etgar, Schneider, Kaz, and Hasson.
The witness, Mr. Peretz: Yes.
The Honorable Judge Shaked: This is the partnership.
The witness, Mr. Peretz: Yes.
The Honorable Judge Shaked: Okay, okay. So Odin Logistics Services that is written in the indictment is not?
......
Witness, Mr. Peretz: (Uden) Entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship and services, yes.
The Honorable Judge Shaked: Entrepreneurship and services are inside the matter, well, let's focus on the request.