In view of the above, I determine that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proving the claim that the receipts from the Ministry of Health found their way into Uri's pocket, and that her claim, according to which "probably a considerable portion" of the funds were transferred to Uri's pocket (paragraph 21.1 of the plaintiff's summaries), remains only her hypothesis.
- Uri declared that since the signing of the agreement to sell the shares to David, he has no connection to luxury, including the lack of access to information about luxury.
Reinforcement of the above can be found in the language of clauses 4.5-4.6 and 4.8-4.9 of the agreement for the sale of shares to David, where it was agreed that:
Uri attached a deed for the transfer of luxury shares to David dated December 21, 2021 (Appendix 3 to Uri's affidavit), as well as a notice to the Registrar of Companies dated December 21, 2021, regarding the "registration of a notice of transfer of shares", in which it was stated that David was the shareholder of Luxury, and a notice dated January 27, 2022 regarding a change in the composition of the board of directors of Luxury, in which it was noted that only David serves as a director of Luxury (Appendix 4 to Uri's affidavit).
He also testified that to the best of his knowledge, the decision of the Prestige Board of Directors was made in accordance with the provisions of clause 4.6 of the agreement for the sale of shares to David (p. 84, lines 1-11 of the minutes).
I will add that a peruse of the details of the current account transactions shows that from the date of signing the agreement for the sale of shares to David until January 27, 2022, when it was noted in the Registrar of Companies that only David serves as a director of the luxury company, receipts in the sum of approximately ILS 44,700 from "Customs and VAT" were received in the luxury account - that is, most of the receipts were received in a luxury account prior to the signing of the agreement for the sale of shares to David, and the aforesaid greatly weakens the plaintiff's argument. According to which Uri remained a director of the company after signing the agreement to sell the shares to David, in order to control the funds and transfer them to him.
- The plaintiff's claims regarding Uri's personal liability "for all the bad conduct, including thinly financed activity....." (paragraph 14 of Roy's affidavit), were argued in a casual and general manner, without specifying, and certainly not proven, what is the alleged "thin financing" and/or what are the sources of that "thin financing" and/or what is Uri's connection to the aforesaid.
It seems that it is not for nothing that when Roy was asked how the claim of "thin financing" is consistent with the fact that funds were transferred to Yukara's bank account, even if the transfer was made later than expected, he did not provide a substantive answer (p. 56, lines 11-20 of the transcript).
- In view of the rule detailed above, I determine that the claim against Uri has not been proven, and therefore I reject it, while clarifying that the other arguments of the parties have not gone unnoticed, but I have not found that they can change the said outcome.
- As to the issue of expenses, after considering all the circumstances and taking into account, inter alia, that the proceeding was conducted to the fullest, including the submission of summaries on behalf of the parties, I obligate the plaintiff to pay the defendant 2 expenses in the sum of ILS 16,000.
- The right to appeal to the Central District Court - Lod within 60 days.
The secretariat will send the judgment to the parties, and close the case.