If this is the case with statements to the tax authorities for the purpose of reducing the liability, as happened in that matter, then this is certainly the case with regard to the manner in which defendant 1's counsel formulated the said letter. This also rejects his argument in paragraph 45 of his summaries that according to this letter, the parties presented themselves to the public as partners. This is correspondence between the parties and not a representation of third parties.
- The plaintiff refers to Appendix 12 to the plaintiff's affidavit, an email dated November 9, 2020, in which Adv. Moran Sils of the Fiscal Department of the Tel Aviv District Attorney's Office (civil) responds to the plaintiff and refers to defendant 1 as "your partner at the time", and later writes that "while you were partners", equal fines were imposed. First, whatever the author's legal opinion on the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant 1, with all due respect, the court is entrusted with determining this relationship and not the State Attorney's Office. Second, the plaintiff did not attach his application, in response to which this email was sent, so it is impossible to know why this method of expression was chosen. Third, here too, in view of all the circumstances, it is clear that we are dealing with joint and equal responsibility for the criminal acts and not for partnership in the legal sense. It has already been proven that the parties did not report to the tax authorities as partners, so it is certainly not to be relied upon by the representative of the State Attorney's Office (who has not been proven to be familiar with the entire sequence of events) as determining the definition of a partnership, with its legal implications.
- The plaintiff argues in his summaries that defendant 1 is silenced from claiming the absence of an obligation to account in light of his demand to perform an accounting in the counterclaim. I cannot accept this argument.
An examination of the counterclaim, filed by Odan Development and defendant 1, shows that it relies mainly on an unsigned agreement, the validity of which the plaintiff denies (Appendix 11 to the plaintiff's affidavit). This agreement, dated December 1, 2014, relates to Oden Entrepreneurship and determines, inter alia, that the plaintiff's share in the shares of this company will be diluted to 4% through the allocation of shares to defendant 1; that the plaintiff and defendant 1 will be entitled and jointly liable to the rights and obligations of this company in the "Amot Project" until December 1, 2014; that the plaintiff, through a company on his behalf, will be entitled to all receipts in connection with the projects "Ashtrom in the Great Gush" and "The Football Stadium in Petah Tikva", deducting payments to the manpower corporations and while indemnifying Oden Services for debts or claims related to these projects.