I cannot accept this argument. The fact that in 2005 the plaintiff and defendant 1 - who until then had operated mainly through one company - Odan Services - chose to try to circumvent the restrictions of regulation illegally, by splitting its activity into several manpower companies and while concealing their ownership of them - has nothing to do with the partnership's claim.
- The plaintiff describes that the business relationship between him and defendant 1 began around 2000. At that time, they began to operate in the field of foreign workers' services for the construction industry (paragraph 15 of his affidavit). In paragraph 26 of the affidavit, he specifies: "In the first years, we operated by providing 'ground services' to the workers. The activity was through companies that opened and closed, at first a company called "Bel Breeding Horses... Then a company called "Pal", then Odan Logistics and later Odan Logistics Services... Parallel to the companies in which the parties were shareholders, the parties opened a manpower company of foreign workers with Zemach Hammerman."
- The plaintiff adds that the activity through companies from the very beginning was for the purposes of tax advantages (paragraph 20 of his affidavit), or for other purposes - "The partnership was not organized in one company or another, but was based on an agreement between me and Adi according to which we would establish legal entities as needed, and in all of them we would be owners, sometimes behind the scenes, equally" (section 33). In his understanding, the partnership "was based on oral consent and the relationship of trust between us, and we did not make any written agreements..." (Section 31).
It is true that in the amended indictment in which the plaintiff and defendant 1 admitted, it was written that this act was illegal, that the real ownership of these companies is that of the plaintiff and defendant 1, and that the activities of these companies should be regarded as the activity of a single corporation (section 66 of the amended indictment). But in this he did not receive.