And more:
Q: Okay. Now let's open the 2019 report. In the 2019 report,
...
Adv. Vargon: Until they find it for me. Here. Related Side, 494. It jumped from 300 to 494 per year. That's about 200,000 shekels. Which is the 15,000 shekels a month, is that the difference?
Witness: I don't know.
Q: I don't know.
A: No.
Q: Now one more thing, just fix the math for me. If you have an agreement from 2009 for 15,000 shekels a month, do you know how much it should have been written in the 2018 report that presented the deal? On the order of several million shekels.
A: I guess.
Q: So explain to me how there were only 300 in the report.
...
A: I explained this in the initial answer. I said I thought it was appropriate for the company to pay me a management fee at some point, okay? about the legal proceedings, and I determined among myself that in the end I am the sole director within the company at that time. That the company will actually pay. Now, no, I'm not done yet. What I'm saying, the 15,000 shekels that I actually determined, I didn't set them, it was actually graded. It's not 15,000 shekels starting from that period, it's accordingly, in the processes of legal proceedings that were actually created. In those times when there are no legal proceedings,
Q: So you don't deserve 15.
A: I run the company and that's it, no.
Q: You don't deserve 15.
A: Not 15, I said too.
Q: Less deserves but.
A: It may also be less" [ibid., at p. 50, lines 3-31 and at p. 51, lines 1-12].
In other words, the defendant did not lift the burden that was transferred to him in order to remove the concerns regarding the debt as aforesaid. There was insufficient evidence to support the defendant's claims, and there was no coherence in the presentation he made during his interrogation. As a result, there remain various versions, which are not legally supported, regarding the description of the expenses underlying the debt; regarding the mechanism by which the defendant set management fees from the company; including the basis for the engagement between him and the company for the purpose of providing such management fees. There is a real concern that such conduct will lead to future discrimination if the prima facie debt has not yet been collected.
- The same difficulties arise with regard to informing the plaintiff of the debt to a "related party" prior to the signing of the agreement. On the one hand, the defendant refers to the management fees in the correspondence between the parties about two months prior to its signing as follows:
"There is no such company. At the moment there is only Socrates. There is no managing company and I stopped distributing the management fees until we reached understandings. Socrates' intention vis-à-vis the partners" [Appendix 6 to Maor's main testimony affidavit, at p. 38 of April 3, 2019 at 17:16:15].