As testified by the plaintiff's manager, Danny Mizrahi, this is an accepted practice in the field of check discounting, and this is the way in which companies in the field deduct checks that are printed "to the beneficiary only".
Recently, I discussed a similar matter, in the same case of the contractor Ben Elisha, and I found that there is no impediment to recognizing the plaintiff as a proper holder of a check for the beneficiary only in which her name appears as an additional payee, as I ruled in a civil case (Shalom Ash).
9909-07-23 Opel Balance (2006( Ltd. v. Yaakov Dalekian, [Nevo], March 13, 2025:
"As detailed at length in the plaintiff's summaries, the very fact that the plaintiff is registered as a payee in the deed does not prevent him from being recognized as a proper holder, since the examination of the relationship between the parties is substantive and not formal (Civil Appeal 1886/97 Ze'ev Yehuda v. Pnina Zelma, IsrSC 35(1( 132 ((1999().
With regard to the fact that the plaintiff's name appears as the payee on the check that is only to the beneficiary, and that this matter does not prevent her from being recognized as a proper holder, the plaintiff referred a civil appeal (Tel Aviv District( 2217/09 Easy to Wood Ltd. v. Or Shai Lavi Ltd., [Nevo], August 14, 2011, paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge Y. Schneller, who after analyzing the case law clarified:
"If a place where a moral draws a check "only to the beneficiary" without a paid name, it may find itself in a broken trough, all the more so where a moral draws a check and notes in it that the payee is a distant party. And all the more beautiful is where the drawer knows (or should have known( that the check will most likely be paid by that distant party, as has been done several times in the past. The distant party is not bound or bound by an agreement made with the nearest party, including those obligations to which the appellant's manager undertook (of course, within the limits of good faith(".