Caso Civil (Tel Aviv) 75948-12-20 Shabtai Alon contra Michael Mirilashvili - part 5

The witness, Mr. Kricheli: Yes.

Attorney Lande: He told Boris and Foola (the plaintiff).

The witness, Mr. Kricheli: I told Boris and the fool" (transcript of July 9, 2025, page 19, line 36 to page 20, line 2)

And later on:

"Witness, Mr. Krichley: No, I wasn't on the phone, Boris took Thomas to the airport.

Attorney Weissman: Thomas and Boris are in a taxi going to the airport, you are on the phone.

The witness, Mr. Kricheli: I'm on the phone and Fool (the plaintiff) is on the phone, we all talked to Shota and they talked on the phone and that's how we closed the price.

Adv. Weissman: And Michael (the defendant) is not on the phone?

The witness, Mr. Kricheli: No, Michael was not in the business at all, he gave us money and told us a certain amount he wanted about the business, he was not a partner" (page 20, lines 17-23).

67. Later, in cross-examination, he testified that those who undertook to pay the plaintiff were him and Thomas. The following are the following:

"Attorney Weissman: Look, I suggest that if you want to reach Michael as a financier and you need a broker to open this door for you, the one who has to pay the broker is you and Thomas.

The witness, Mr. Kricheli: Of course Thomas and I were supposed to pay Boris and Saturn some questions" (page 28, lines 14-17).

68. In conclusion so far, and contrary to the version presented by the plaintiff in his affidavit as detailed above, as well as contrary to the version presented by Bezalel in his affidavit submitted for the purpose of proving the plaintiff's version, the issue of brokerage fees was not agreed at all in that meeting in Herzliya, but rather in a telephone conversation during Boris and Thomas' trip to the airport. According to him, the defendant was not a partner in this conversation at all. It also turned out that the undertaking to pay the brokerage fees was Bezalel and Thomas's and not the defendant's.
69. It should be noted that in the course of his cross-examination, Bezalel was referred to the fact that he testified in his cross-examination that Boris had received the payment from the defendant (the circumstances of the payment to Boris will be detailed later when analyzing Boris's testimony) and was asked why Boris did not receive the payment from him and from Thomas. He replied that as soon as the defendant entered to be a partner with them in the framework of the outline change, then the defendant was supposed to pay and that "he informed us that he pays this way and he pays that way, of course" (see page 31, line 27 to page 32, line 23). This is a different version than the one that appears in his affidavit and also different from the plaintiff's version detailed in the statement of claim.

Boris's testimony

70. As noted, Boris filed an affidavit in support of the defendants' claim. In his affidavit, he testified that in 2009 his brother Bezalel asked him to contact Thomas and his partners and the defendant. According to him, he agreed to contact the defendant and agreed with Thomas that in return for his help he would receive a payment of 10% of the financing that the defendant would provide.  Boris testified that he had known the defendant since 1999, when they met in St.  Petersburg at a multi-participant event held by the defendant to mark the Hanukkah holiday, and that following that event, business and friendship were forged between them.  According to him, in light of his brother Bezalel's request, he called the defendant, who invited him to his office in Herzliya in order to discuss the transaction.  He came to his office the next day and presented him with the deal, and the defendant agreed to fulfill it and meet with Thomas and Bezalel.  A few days later, a meeting was held at the defendant's office in Herzliya, in which the defendant, Thomas, Bezalel and himself participated.  The plaintiff was also present at this meeting.  According to his testimony in the affidavit, he did not know the plaintiff beforehand, but knew that he was a relative of the defendant.  According to him, although the plaintiff was present at the meeting, he did not participate in the hearing.  Following this meeting and after lengthy negotiations, the defendant, Thomas and Bezalel concluded the transaction.  He was happy that the deal was signed, thanks in part to the connection he created.
71. He testified that the plaintiff had no part in initiating or brokering the transaction; that the plaintiff did not know Thomas and Bezalel at all; that neither of them needed the plaintiff's services, since he himself was in contact with the defendant and could have spoken to him about such a transaction directly, as he did. He testified that in the meeting at the defendant's office, it was not agreed at all that he would pay the plaintiff initiation and brokerage fees, and that this was not discussed at all (section 9). In his cross-examination, he even testified that Thomas asked the defendant about the plaintiff , "Who is this person, why is he here, take him out, Michael said it's okay, it's my cousin, everything is fine" (with him, lines 37-39).
72. In his cross-examination testimony, Boris testified that he himself received payment for brokerage fees in the sum of $1, 650, 000, which constitutes 5% of the sum of $33 million, the first part of the loan (see transcript of July 20, 2025, page 32, lines 23-29). He testified that the sum was paid by Thomas through the defendant in accordance with his request, with the obligation to him being only Thomas's and not the defendant's. Boris repeated this several times in his responsa (see page 32, line 38 to page 33, line 11, and also see page 33, lines 25-28 and line 34, and on page 34, lines 4-5, 11-12).
73. As to the plaintiff's right to receive brokerage fees, he testified that the plaintiff was supposed to receive the payment from Thomas and not from the defendant (see page 32, line 31). These words are also consistent with his testimony in Bezalel's cross-examination cited above, and which he testified on behalf of the plaintiff.
74. According to Boris's testimony, at the plaintiff's request, he agreed to waive half of the brokerage fees he was supposed to receive from Thomas in favor of the plaintiff. He did this after the plaintiff presented him with the distress in which he was found and promised in return to share with him any transaction he would make in the future with the defendant.  Here are the words: "When I get so much money, he (the plaintiff) comes to me and starts crying, 'My wife has problems with income tax, VAT and she might sit in jail so help me and whatever I do in the future with Michael I also share with you' (page 37, lines 30-33).  He repeated this again later after the plaintiff's counsel asked him again about the matter: "When he saw that Saturn was receiving such a sum, he came to cry with me about his wife, presented me with a presentation of something terrible, a Georgian woman who is going to sit in prison, and besides, he added that in the future, whatever I make deals with Micho, I will give you half as well" (page 39, lines 7-10).  He went on to explain why it was logical to act like this: "He (the plaintiff) because he sat with Micho all the time in his office he spread rumors that anyone who wanted to do business with Micho would pass through Saturn" (page 39, lines 28-29).
75. As for the plaintiff's claim that the defendant "bought" his testimony, I am unable to accept it. Boris's affidavit was signed on November 14, 2024. In his cross-examination, which took place on July 20, 2025, about 8 months later, Boris was asked whether the defendant owed him money and replied, "No, on the contrary, I owe him a few months that he helped me pay my creditor." When asked if this was done in preparation for his testimony, he replied: "No. About 4 months ago." He explained that it was his debt to the defendant (page 29, lines 15-28).  During his interrogation, counsel for the defendants played a recording of a conversation that took place on July 17, 2025, only three days before the hearing, which took place between Boris and a man named Sharon (transcript of the conversation marked P/4).  The conversation shows that Mr. Sharon, who is apparently the creditor, is angry with Boris for promising him that he will transfer the sum of ILS 10, 000 on account of his debt, an amount that he was supposed to receive from the defendant, when in fact he did not transfer the amount.  There is no statement in the conversation regarding the acquisition of testimony and it is a conclusion that the plaintiff wishes to learn from the conversation.  It should be noted that Boris said in his testimony that the defendant helped him pay the creditor even before the transcript of the conversation was
76. In the same conversation, Boris tells Sharon that the defendant owes him over $1 million. From this statement, the plaintiff seeks to learn that this is the difference in the amount that Boris received as brokerage fees for the transaction.  Boris was asked about this and replied that he had told Sharon a lie and that it was not a matter of brokerage fees due to him (see page 30, line 37 to page 31, line 18).
77. It should be noted that Boris's affidavit allegedly indicates that there was an attempt to influence him to change his testimony, but not on the defendant's part. Boris testified in his affidavit that during June 2024, about three and a half years after the lawsuit was filed, he was invited by his brother Bezalel to a meeting in which the plaintiff and another person familiar with the details of the dispute were also present. According to him, the same person claimed that the plaintiff owed him money and undertook to pay him half of the amount he would win in the lawsuit.  At that meeting, Boris clarified that the plaintiff had not brought him to the diamond deal and that the plaintiff's claims were not true.  According to him, he made it clear that he would not change his testimony and would not agree to receive any benefit in this regard.  He also testified that about two weeks later, his brother Bezalel brought him to another meeting, in which the plaintiff and the other person also participated, and he made it clear again that he would testify only the truth and that no pressure would cause him to do otherwise (see paragraphs 11-14).
78. In his testimony, Bezalel was asked about that meeting. In his cross-examination, he was asked who was the other person and who invited him. He replied that he did not know his name and that it was the plaintiff who invited him (see transcript of July 9, 2026, page 24, lines 18-30).
79. The plaintiff in his cross-examination was also asked about that meeting. He was asked if he was the one who invited the other person and answered in the negative. When asked about his identity, he replied that he did not remember his name, later it turned out that he was afraid to say his name, "I don't want to say these are scary people and I don't want to say because even before that I was called from prison by a very, very senior person and this person is connected to him" and later when asked if he owed that person money, he replied: "I owe him money? Suddenly in life, no, no, not really, very simple, they wanted to intervene and I don't want them to intervene, I am in court, no one wants to interfere" (see page 95, line 9 to page 98, line 9.  The above quotes are from page 98).
80. In light of all the above, I do not accept the plaintiff's claim regarding the alleged purchase of Boris's testimony.

Failure to summon Thomas to testify

81. Thomas participated in the same meeting in which, according to the plaintiff, the defendant undertook to pay him a brokerage fee of 5% of the investment amount. As stated above, the plaintiff initially asked to summon Thomas, who did not file an affidavit, to testify, but later waived his summons. Given that the plaintiff's claim was based on oral consent, it was absolutely necessary to hear the testimonies of everyone present at that meeting.  This is especially true after the waiver of the summons to testify to Thomas, who is a central figure in the transaction, was made after the defendant and Boris submitted affidavits in which a version contrary to that of the plaintiff was presented.  The importance of his testimony is reinforced after it became clear from the testimony of Bezalel, who submitted an affidavit on his behalf, that the undertaking to pay brokerage fees was that of Thomas and his brother Bezalel and not of the defendant.  There is no reason to accept the plaintiff's reliance on recorded conversations that were conducted with Thomas.  The defendants were not given the opportunity to question him about these conversations, which took place in 2022, about 13 years after the engagement in the diamond deal.  This is without clarifying the intent of the remarks, the context in which they were made, and whether these conversations were manipulated to lead Thomas to say certain things.  It is not for nothing that in his cross-examination the defendant said that "if you wanted to reach the discovery of the truth, you would have asked to summon Tams and not my wife Laura.  You have given up" (page 65, lines 9-10).

The defendant's version

82. As stated, in the statement of defense, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's claims, which he called false claims. According to his affidavit, in 2009, Boris approached him and suggested that he invest in the diamond business of Thomas and his partners. At that time, the defendant had already known Boris for many years.  They cooperated in business and also developed a friendly relationship.  When Boris approached him, the defendant invited him to a meeting in his office in Herzliya in order to present the matter to him.  At the meeting in which only the two of them participated, Boris presented the defendant with the deal.  The investment seemed interesting to the defendant, so he asked to meet Thomas.  Shortly afterwards, another meeting was held at the defendant's offices in Herzliya, attended by Thomas, Bezalel, Boris and him.  The plaintiff was also present in the room but did not take an active part in it and was not involved in any way in the matter.  After negotiations, Thomas and his associates reached agreements with him regarding the loan and subsequently signed three loan agreements totaling $49 million (Articles 45-49).
83. He testified that the plaintiff did not initiate the transaction, was not a party to it, and was not involved in its conclusion beyond being inactive at the meeting. He testified that he did not undertake to pay the plaintiff any brokerage or initiation fees and that the person who brokered the transaction was Boris, who, to the best of his knowledge, had agreed with Thomas on consideration to which he was entitled for this (paragraph 50).
84. In his affidavit, he referred to a conversation he had with Boris, which he recorded with his knowledge and approval, in which his version was in fact confirmed (paragraph 51).
85. The defendant also testified that as a rule, he is always looking for business opportunities and ideas, and that people he does not know personally can ask to meet with him and present him with potential business ventures. According to him, he did not need a prosecutor for this purpose. He testified that there were indeed parties who sought to take advantage of the plaintiff's proximity to him in order for him to promote proposals with him, as the company did with Hachshara Energy, when in that case this was done behind his back and while harming the trust he placed in the plaintiff.  In any event, he clarified that even if there were parties who asked the plaintiff to assist them in scheduling a meeting with him, this did not entitle the plaintiff to brokerage fees.  According to him, the same entity that hired the plaintiff's services was the one who was supposed to pay the plaintiff brokerage fees.  This was also the case in the case of the Kochsher Energy Company (see paragraphs 42-43).  This testimony is consistent with Boris and Bezalel's version of who was supposed to pay a brokerage fee to Boris and the plaintiff to the extent that the latter was entitled to receive such a commission.  The significance of the aforesaid is that as far as the defendant is concerned, there is no logic that he should undertake to pay the plaintiff the defendant's brokerage fees.
86. In his cross-examination testimony, the defendant reiterated that in the first transaction the plaintiff did not take any part (page 48, lines 32-33). The defendant even said that at first he met alone with Boris, and only later did a meeting take place in which Bezalel, Thomas and the plaintiff were also present. He reiterated that the plaintiff's stay with him stemmed from a desire to save him and assist him.  "I want you to listen and know how your client behaved, imagine what he was like then when he was dependent on drug use.  He was with me because I wanted to save him and help him.  My parents asked and my late father told me, "Only you can save him." It was really a pain for me to stay with him.  It was impossible how this person was, but I loved him and did everything to save him.  People were simply surprised by his situation, they asked.  He was not present at my meeting with Boris, but in the next meeting when we met the next time there were 5 people there: Boris, Saturn" (page 61, lines 27-34).  The defendant's motives for assisting the plaintiff will be further elaborated on later in the discussion of the second transaction.
87. The defendant also testified in his response to cross-examination that the sum paid to Boris was at Thomas' request and that it was not his undertaking (see page 65, lines 13-18).

Changes and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's version in connection with the first transaction

88. As stated, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to an intermediary fee in the sum of $2, 500, 000, which constitutes 5% of the financing amount in the amount of $50, 000, 000 that the defendant provided for the transaction. It turned out that the sum agreed to be transferred by the defendant was $49, 000, 000, so that at most, the plaintiff was entitled to the sum of $2, 450, 000 and not the sum that he claimed in the statement of claim that he was entitled to. The plaintiff was asked in his cross-examination whether he knew that the amount of funding was $49 million, and he replied that he knew about it.  If he did know as he claimed, then there would have been no reason to claim in the statement of claim that he was entitled to the sum of $2.5 million and to include an incorrect figure in his affidavit (see paragraph 76).  The plaintiff was asked why he acted in this way, and his answers on this matter are insufficient (see transcript of July 9, 2025, page 50, lines 17-35).
89. In paragraph 10 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed that it was agreed that the defendant would pay him 5% of the scope of the investment, in exchange for the full return of the financing and the payment of the premium to the defendant. In his affidavit, the plaintiff presented a different version. According to his testimony in paragraph 76 of his affidavit, his entitlement to receive brokerage fees was not at all contingent on the return of the full financing and the payment of the premium.
90. As to the amount of profit from the first transaction - in paragraph 75.3 of his affidavit, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant would earn about $20 million for the provision of the financing. In his cross-examination, he testified that the amount of profit may have been approximately $17 or $18 million. And when confronted with Bezalel's testimony that the sum was between $8 million and $13 million, he replied, "I never broke my head about it, because it was agreed that their team would get and we would get $5 million, you understood, so I didn't break my head, it's exactly 17, 18, 20, what Bezalel remembers, and he didn't remember exactly that it was a year ago, I remember what I was getting" (see 51-53 of the transcript, and especially page 53, lines 33-36).  The profit from the transaction is a material detail that would have been expected that the plaintiff, who was allegedly involved in the brokerage, knew it.  This is especially true in light of his claim that later on, when the outline was changed, he became a partner in the second transaction.
91. In his summary, the plaintiff retracted his version that was raised in paragraph 10 of the statement of claim, according to which the defendant undertook to pay him brokerage fees at that meeting in Herzliya. Thus, the plaintiff argued (paragraph 59) that initially Thomas and Bezalel were supposed to bear the payment, and that thereafter, following the change in the outline, this undertaking was transferred to the defendant. According to him, this version is consistent with what is stated in paragraph 86 of his affidavit that only after the outline was changed did he and the defendant agree that he would receive both his share of the brokerage in the first transaction and his share of the profits of the diamond transaction; and that in the transcript of his cross-examination on page 56, lines 22-24, he noted that the turning point in relation to the identity of the payer occurred as a result of the change in the outline.  I do not accept this explanation of the plaintiff.  The argument that the defendant undertook at the time of the meeting to pay the plaintiff the brokerage fees is at the basis of his argument that was brought in paragraph 10 of the statement of claim and which he reiterated in his affidavit (see the details above, and in particular paragraph 79 of the affidavit).  As noted, this claim turned out to be incorrect.  It should be noted that what is stated in paragraph 86 of his affidavit does not relate to this central claim, but rather describes a seemingly new agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.  The statements in his cross-examination testimony to which he referred dealt with Boris's entitlement to receive the payment due to him, and do not relate to the claim regarding the defendant's obligation to him at the time of the meeting.  This matter is essential because the claim is based on a claim of the existence of an oral agreement.  Therefore, changes in the version regarding the circumstances of the conclusion of the agreement and contradictions between the testimonies of those involved are significant, act to the plaintiff's obligation and lead to the rejection of his version.

The plaintiff is not a partner of the defendant in the second transaction and is entitled to receive 10% of its profits

92. Already at this stage, I will note that since the plaintiff's main argument regarding the defendant's undertaking to pay him brokerage fees in the sum of ILS 2, 500, 000 was rejected, a significant doubt was cast into question as to the reliability of his version of the existence of a partnership between him and the defendant in connection with the second transaction. In the present case, the heavy burden that was already placed on his shoulders to prove his entitlement to receive brokerage fees for the first transaction was doubly heavy with regard to his claim that he was a partner in the second transaction and that he was therefore entitled to payment of 10% of its profits.
93. This is especially true in light of the plaintiff's testimony at the hearing held on December 2, 2024, in which he said that the agreement with him regarding the second transaction was made with him only in the presence of the defendant (see page 20, lines 1-3). In other words, with the exception of the plaintiff's testimony, which the defendant rejected on the grounds that it was a false and unfounded claim (section 59), there is no first-hand testimony of anyone who was present at that meeting that can support his version.

0

94. In this case, too, the plaintiff does not rely on a written agreement and does not even present written documents that can support his claim of a partnership with the defendant that he claims. This is reinforced by the fact that a rift began to form between the defendant and the plaintiff as early as 2012 and in view of the claim that from that date the money began to be demanded (see the discussion above on this matter on the issue of the statute of limitations). In the circumstances described, it was expected that the demands for payment addressed to the defendant would be documented in writing, in messages on the mobile phone, etc.  Moreover, from the testimonies of the plaintiff's close family members regarding the demands to receive the money, it appears that the plaintiff shared this matter with them.  Therefore, it was expected that correspondence and messages sent between family members on this matter would be presented.  No such documents were presented.
95. Since the plaintiff's claim to be entitled to receive brokerage fees from the defendant in the sum of $2, 500, 000 was rejected, at the time of the change in the outline of the first transaction, the defendants did not owe him the said amount. In these circumstances, there is prima facie no economic logic on the part of the defendant to add the plaintiff to the partnership as alleged and to pay him 10% of the profits of the transaction, when according to the plaintiff his share amounted to $16, 000, 000 without the plaintiff being required to invest any amount on his part. This is especially the case, since, as will be detailed below, the plaintiff received a substantial payment for his trouble.
96. The defendant did indeed share his business with the plaintiff and even paid him and his family significant sums, but for reasons other than those presented by the plaintiff and not as a partner entitled to 10% of the profits of the second transaction.
97. As stated above, in the statement of defense, the defendant claimed that due to the family closeness between him and the plaintiff and due to his late father's pleas to help the plaintiff, he supported him over the years and helped him get out of his personal, financial and legal distress. Thus, over the years, he transferred huge sums of money to the plaintiff in order to assist him and his family. Out of a desire to help the plaintiff rehabilitate and embark on a new path, he allowed him to deal with matters related to his diamond business.  According to him, the plaintiff had no knowledge in the field and his involvement in his business was intended to provide the plaintiff with some kind of employment that would prevent him from relapsing into drugs (see paragraphs 5-8 of the statement of defense).
98. In his affidavit, the defendant repeated the words. He testified that the plaintiff had been addicted to hard drugs for many years, and that as a result, his financial, health and mental state was unstable, and that from time to time he experienced crises from which his family members rescued him (paragraph 15). According to him, after he immigrated to Israel in 2009, his parents begged him to help the plaintiff and his family.  He testified that his late father told him that the plaintiff's condition was terrible, so it was originally, and therefore he asked him to save him and keep him by his side (paragraph 16).
99. He also testified that the plaintiff and his wife were dealing with the collapse of the family business in the field of aesthetic medicine and in order to help them, he transferred large sums of money to their son. He also transferred sums of money to the family members in order to help them deal with the criminal proceedings that were conducted against them for tax offenses (sections 18-19).  According to him, the prosecutor was deleted from an indictment filed against him after he declared that his health was precarious due to his addiction to hard drugs (section 20).  He also referred to a sentence from 2003 in which it was stated that the plaintiff testified that he himself had withdrawn from the management of the company and would appear in it only to take drugs (section 24 and Appendix 3).
100. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff was asked about his drug addiction. He admitted that he had a problem with this matter, which he defined as "Specifically, let's say so, throughout my life, I had a few times when there was a problem and it was resolved very quickly." According to him, it was not hard drugs but cocaine (page 44, lines 12-18).
101. Later, he was asked about a criminal proceeding that was conducted against him and his wife, which was opened in 2008. He was asked whether he had been dropped from the indictment filed against him because he was addicted to hard drugs, and he replied: "I remember something like that." According to him, it was in 2008 and 2009 it was drug-free (see page 44, lines 23-29).  And later on: "I said in advance that I had a few points, I had a problem in 2003 and 2008, and every time I had the problem with the drug, I caused problems very quickly, I recovered" (page 44, lines 34-36, and see also his cross-examination regarding the sentence handed down in 2009, page 45, lines 4-19).  It should be noted that in the sentence of January 30, 2003 (Appendix 3 to the defendant's affidavit), it was written about the plaintiff "that for the past year he has been drug-free and even helps others who have been harmed by the use of drugs." From the aforesaid, it can be learned that the matter of the plaintiff's drug addiction was not a one-time event.  This fact supports the defendant's claim regarding the drug problem that the plaintiff had and his desire to help him as a result.
102. In his affidavit, the defendant testified as follows: "In order to assist Shabtai and prevent him from deteriorating in his drug addiction, I also made sure that Shabtai had a framework of daily employment. Shortly after I immigrated to Israel, Shabtai became my companion.  Shabtai came to my office in Herzliya every morning and accompanied me most of the day: he sat with me in my office in Herzliya, accompanied me on trips and meetings, and performed tasks that I assigned him from time to time, such as translation, and so on.  I did not need his presence in my office, and he did not have a real contribution, but as stated, I wanted to help him" (see section 37).  Later, he testified that thanks to this agenda, the plaintiff was exposed to the businesses and transactions in which he took part, and this information enabled him to file the claim and claim that he was an intermediary in the transaction and a partner (section 39).
103. As stated above, the defendant testified that he assisted the plaintiff and his family following the collapse of the business.  According to him, the collapse of the business left heavy debts, and to the best of his recollection, the plaintiff's wife was personally responsible for the debts of the business.  As a result, he transferred large sums of money to their son Yossi intended to help them reach an arrangement with the creditors.  Indeed, the plaintiff confirmed in his testimony that the defendant transferred ILS 1.3 million to his family (page 65, lines 23-24, and see also her testimony in Tami's affidavit at paragraph 44.  On the fact that the business is in financial difficulties, see Tami's testimony on page 14, lines 31-38).
104. In an affidavit given by Yossi on March 10, 2013 (P/5), he stated at the request of the Tax Authority as follows:

"I am the shareholder and director of Yossi Medical Center (2002) Ltd., Company No. 51-331094-6