Caso Civil (Tel Aviv) 75948-12-20 Shabtai Alon contra Michael Mirilashvili - part 6

(hereinafter: the "Company").  I am making this affidavit at the request of the Tax Authority.

In order to finance the company's activities and to provide financial assistance to my mother, Mrs. Tamar Alon, and the companies she owns, I have Plastic Surgery Medical Center (2000) Ltd.  and Anat Medical Center (1991) Ltd., I received a loan from a foreign company owned by my relatives, in the sum of approximately ILS 300, 000.  The funds were deposited in the company's bank account.

The funds were paid mainly for the purpose of executing the creditors' arrangement of my mother, Tamar Alon, which was executed in accordance with Section 19A of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, 5740-1980, in the framework of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (District Court - Tel Aviv) 2792/09 (hereinafter: the "Bankruptcy File").  The debts that are the subject of the bankruptcy case were all the result of guarantees guaranteed by my mother for the debts of the companies owned by my mother.  The economic entanglement was with many creditors, including the Income Tax and VAT.

A copy of relevant material in relation to the amounts received from the foreign company and their attribution as a loan is attached as Appendix A.

In addition, in order to pay off all of my mother's debts, I personally took out a loan from the Hoshen Argaman Diamonds Company Ltd., in which I serve as owner and CEO, in the amount of ILS 1 million.

A copy of the loan agreement dated February 15, 2011, attached as Appendix B.

In addition to all of these, I pay every month as part of a VAT payment arrangement from my bank account the debt of the Plastic Surgery Medical Center (2000) Ltd.

A copy of the payment arrangement and receipt in respect of checks deposited by me for execution dated December 22, 2011 is attached as Appendix C."

Appendix A to the affidavit detailed financial transfers from the company Kitaim (hereinafter: "Kitaim"), whose registered owner is the defendant's son in the sum of ILS 1, 300, 000 in 3 installments: July 1, 2009 - ILS 600, 000, August 12, 2009 - ILS 200, 000 and September 14, 2009 - ILS 500, 000 (regarding the ownership of the Kitaim company, see paragraph 103 of the plaintiff's affidavit).

105. The plaintiff's testimony indicates that the sum of ILS 1.3 million, which he says the defendant transferred to his family, is the sum mentioned in Yossi's affidavit (P/5). In response to the questionnaire addressed to him, the plaintiff stated in paragraph 2 the sums of ILS 600, 000 and ILS 200, 000 that were transferred from the company as detailed in B/5, which, according to him, were sums transferred for future profits to which he would be entitled from the joint business activity.  The plaintiff was asked in cross-examination about the fact that he did not refer to the third sum in the sum of ILS 500, 000, which complements the sum of ILS 1.3 million, and whether these were the same sums as detailed in Yossi's affidavit, and he replied in the affirmative, "I think so." In his cross-examination answer, he did not know how to explain why he did not mention the third sum in his answer to the questionnaire (see page 67, line 12 to page 68, line 28).  In his testimony, he said that these sums were transferred because of the joint business activity with the defendant (page 69, lines 4-6).  This, despite the fact that he had previously denied it outright (see page 65, lines 25-26).
106. It should be noted that the plaintiff testified in his affidavit that the family business experienced cash flow difficulties that led to the filing of a request for a creditors' arrangement, but as part of the desire to expand the business's activity, the defendant transferred a total of ILS 1.3 million to the business (paragraph 140 of the affidavit).
107. From the aforesaid, and despite the various versions, it emerges that indeed, as the defendant claims, the family business that the plaintiff's wife ran collapsed due to financial difficulties, and that the defendant assisted them by transferring significant funds.
108. The defendant also testified in his affidavit that he assisted the plaintiff's family by giving Yossi a respectable livelihood, out of a desire to rehabilitate the plaintiff's family. According to him, he agreed to the plaintiff's request that his son Yossi serve as the defendant's CEO and assist in managing its business.  This is despite the fact that Yossi was a young man with no managerial experience and no real knowledge in the field of diamonds.  When he started working, Yossi received a salary of ILS 20, 000.  He testified that Yossi approached him with a request to receive a large sum of money in order to help his parents.  The defendant refused to do so, but agreed that the defendant would pay him a salary of approximately ILS 100, 000 for a limited period of time, all in order to assist in the economic rehabilitation of the plaintiff's family.  According to him, Yossi took advantage of this and continued to withdraw this high salary until he left the company (see paragraph 33 of the defendant's affidavit).  It should be noted that it can also be learned from Yossi's testimony that indeed, the increase in the amount to ILS 100, 000 was intended to enable his mother Tami to pay her VAT debts (this will be discussed later in the framework of an analysis of Yossi's testimony).
109. In his affidavit, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's claim that the defendant allegedly took part in the establishment of the defendant or that he participated in its management. According to him, the only connection was that his son Yossi served as its CEO, and this was for reasons of helping the plaintiff's family (section 61).  This version of the defendant is consistent with Yossi's version in the statement of defense that he filed in the lawsuit filed against him by the defendants in the framework of the additional proceeding (more on this later).
110. The defendant further testified that since the diamonds were found in Russia, the defendant had to take care of sorting and polishing them in Russia, since it was forbidden to extract raw diamonds from her. For this purpose, the defendant sent Asher Nahyasi, who is an expert gemalogist, Robert Alwashvili, to whom the plaintiff sought employment, and the plaintiff (paragraph 62).  According to him, the plaintiff is not a gemologist and has no real knowledge in the field of diamonds.  However, as part of his efforts to find him employment and in light of his family's closeness, he trusted the plaintiff and trusted him.  Therefore, he asked the plaintiff to accompany those experts who traveled to Russia in order to supervise the sorting and polishing work (section 63).
111. As can be seen from the testimonies and the evidence, the plaintiff did not bear the expenses of the trip and received a substantial payment for his work. In this regard, the defendant testified that the defendant financed the trips to Russia.  In addition, the defendant paid the plaintiff through a company under his control called Maxini Consulting and Investments Ltd.  ongoing remuneration for his travels in the total amount of approximately ILS 430, 000 (section 64).  The defendant attached to his affidavit an accounting ledger of the company from Aksini (Appendix 7).  According to the defendant, if the plaintiff had been a partner, he would not have received ongoing remuneration from the defendant.  He emphasized that this was not a reimbursement of expenses, since the plaintiff did not have expenses of such a large scale, since the defendant purchased the flight tickets for him (section 65).
112. The plaintiff admitted in his affidavit that various sums were transferred to him through the company from the defendant. This, according to him, is for the benefit of the transaction and to cover his expenses.  According to him, these were relatively small sums intended to cover current expenses and were not intended to replace the funds due to him from the profits of the transaction.  He attached to his affidavit a copy of the defendant's card in the books of Maksini (Appendix 24).
113. A perusal of the accounting card that the plaintiff attached to his affidavit shows that hundreds of thousands of shekels were transferred to Maxini during the period beginning on June 20, 2011 and ending on February 15, 2012, i.e., for about 8 months. The card includes credit and debit transactions in the total amount of ILS 429, 000, while for many charges, it was noted that it was "income/sales/rent".  The record shows that this is not a matter of reimbursement of expenses, as the plaintiff claims, but rather of payment of income for legal fees.  This was apparently due to his work for the defendant.  Except for the plaintiff's general statement that these were expenses for the benefit of the transaction and to cover his expenses, he did not specify what those expenses were incurred for the transaction and what of his expenses these payments were intended to cover.  It was necessary that the plaintiff do so in the framework of his affidavit.
114. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff was presented with the card that he attached to his affidavit (Appendix 24) and he confirmed receipt of the sums specified therein. He was asked whether he received additional sums beyond what was stated on the invoice and answered in the affirmative, when he said that everything was for expenses (minutes of July 9, 2025, page 85, lines 1-12).  The plaintiff also confirmed that he himself did not pay for the plane tickets to Russia, but the defendant (page 85, lines 13-22).  When asked what expenses it was about, he replied: "I had a lot of people there who would pay money, what do you mean?" The plaintiff did not specify who those people were to whom he would have paid? Didn't explain why the sums were paid to Maxine? And why is it written on the card "Income/Sales/Rent"? (page 85, lines 25 to page 86, line 12).
115. It should be noted that the plaintiff testified in his affidavit that the defendant rejected his demands for salary because "partners do not receive a salary." Since the nature of the payments appears to be indeed a payment for legal fees, this supports the defendant's claim in his affidavit that if the plaintiff had been a partner, he would not have received ongoing remuneration from the company (section 65).
116. Moreover, during his cross-examination, the plaintiff was presented with an affidavit of answers to the questionnaire addressed to him. In response to question No. 2, in which he was asked to specify the dates on which the defendant transferred money and sums to him or his family members, and whether it was a gift or a loan, he replied that "Micho paid for me the amount of my investment in a casino in Romania in the amount of 800, 000 euros, in which I was a partner alongside Micho.  This sum was paid as part of the consideration I was entitled to for brokerage and initiation fees in the Russian diamond transaction" (see N/7).  In his cross-examination, the plaintiff confirmed that this was indeed his answer (page 66, lines 20-24).  When asked why this was not disclosed in the statement of claim or in his affidavit, he replied: "What you received(s) legal advice is what I wrote" (page 69, lines 30-32) and see also the continuation of his investigation on this matter when the plaintiff was referred to a letter from his attorney dated October 26, 2020, page 71, line 24 to page 72, line 19, in which he confirmed that he had received from the defendant a sum of $1 million, which is the same $800.  000 euros).
117. Moreover, the defendant testified in his affidavit that he promised to give the plaintiff a gift of $600, 000 if the diamond transaction was successfully concluded and yielded him a profit (paragraph 77). He emphasized that this was not a payment for brokerage fees or an undertaking to pay the plaintiff an amount that was derived in any way from the scope of the transaction or from the scope of the profit it would generate (section 78).  He said that after a while, he and his business partners received an offer to invest in a non-diamond business venture in Nairobi, Kenya's capital.  The plaintiff who heard about the venture asked to join him and invest the sum of $600, 000 that he promised to give him (section 79).  He testified that he tried to dissuade the plaintiff from doing so.  According to him, he knew that there was a risk in the venture and thought that it was unlikely that the plaintiff would invest in the venture money that was not yet in his pocket and in fact at the defendant's expense.  He also made it clear to the plaintiff that given his situation, such a loss would be more significant and difficult for him than for the defendant and his partners, and therefore he urged him not to do so.  However, the plaintiff insisted, and therefore the defendant agreed to this (section 80).  Eventually, the risks in the venture materialized, the total investment of about $26 million went down the drain and all the participants in the project lost.  The plaintiff's share in the loss was approximately $1.3 million, and the defendant bore it.  According to him, not only did the sum of $600, 000 that he decided to award to the plaintiff go down the drain, but the defendant even covered the plaintiff's share of the loss in the amount of about $700, 000.  He testified that the plaintiff did not return this sum to him (section 81).
118. The plaintiff referred to these matters in his affidavit and claimed that the defendant's claim that he chose to give him a gift that depends on the profits received from the diamond transaction testifies that he is well aware of his part in the transaction and his involvement in it (paragraphs 164-165). According to him, the defendant decided on his own to invest the said sum in a casino transaction in Kenya, which ultimately did not succeed.  He testified that he did not know about this investment, did not agree to it, and certainly did not insist on participating in it (section 166).
119. It should be noted that this matter of the gift that the defendant promised to the plaintiff was already raised in the statement of defense that he submitted (paragraphs 9-11). In this context, the defendant claimed that even before the diamond transaction yielded a profit, the plaintiff sought to invest the sum in the venture in Kenya.  This was despite the risk involved in the transaction and contrary to his advice.  In the reply, the plaintiff addressed this matter and claimed that what was stated in the statement of defense testified that the plaintiff was the defendant's partner in the Russian diamond transaction.  However, the reply did not raise the claims raised in his affidavit, according to which he did not know about this investment, did not agree to it, and did not insist on participating in it.  These are significant claims that should have been included in the reply.
120. In his cross-examination, the defendant was asked about the same gift. He was asked when he promised to give the plaintiff the gift and replied that it was several months after he began financing the transaction (page 84, lines 7-12).  The plaintiff's counsel offered the defendant the following version: "I tell you that this $600, 000 is part of your calculation of the 10% that he is entitled to from the second transaction, " and the defendant replied: "What you claim is an impression of your imagination and nothing more" (page 84, lines 33-35).  Later, he asked the defendant why, in view of the plaintiff's financial difficulties, he agreed to give him $600, 000 as a gift so that he could invest in a casino in Kenya.  To this, the defendant replied:

"Well done, good question.  Part of Saturn's character, all his problems stem from this, he has no patience, he wants to get rich very quickly right away, I argued with him and fought with him and I was angry with him, unlike them I don't raise my voice, I never raise my voice but I scolded him many times, I was tough with him, he would come home and cry to his mother, that this is my aunt, I insult him and she called me "why are you bringing him to tears?", I say I told her I did it for his name and for him, I don't like it for myself, if you don't want me to mess with him take care of him take care of him take him back to you.  They said to me, 'Ask me, go on.'" (p.  85, lines 16-29).

121. From the aforesaid it appears that according to the defendant's version, the plaintiff and his family members did indeed receive payments from the defendant and anyone on his behalf in very significant amounts. The plaintiff received payment for his troubles through the company from Exini.  The defendant paid significant additional sums in the circumstances detailed above.  All of these are consistent with his version that he acted in this way in order to assist the plaintiff and his family, to take care of the plaintiff's employment in order to help him rehabilitate and embark on a new path.  The fact that the defendant paid the payments and even shared with the plaintiff other transactions that are different from the transaction that is the subject of the lawsuit, does not prove that the plaintiff was a partner in the second diamond transaction, according to which he was entitled to payment of 10% of its profits.
122. Although, according to the plaintiff, the various payments paid to him were at the expense of his share in the partnership in the profits from the second diamond transaction, these were not detailed in the statement of claim to the extent that the impression was created that the plaintiff did not receive any payment for his work and activity within the framework of the defendant's business. The plaintiff's claim that the amount of the claim he stated in the sum of ILS 50, 000, 000 is for the purposes of a fee and that the debt to him is allegedly higher, does not justify omitting such material details.  This matter acts in accordance with his duty and casts a heavy shadow on the reliability of his version.

The plaintiff did not demand money from the defendant in a meeting that took place in 2019

123. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff referred to paragraph 31 of his statement of claim, in which he claimed that during 2015, the defendant for the first time denied his obligations to him and began to raise a variety of claims against him. According to him, he continued to demand that the defendant fulfill his obligations, but preferred not to bring the matter to court.  As an example of the defendant's denial of his duties to him, he described a meeting that took place between them on September 22, 2019 in St.  Petersburg regarding the defendant's debts to him.  According to him, the defendant evaded the allegations against him and hurled unrelated allegations at him regarding casino business in Romania.
124. The defendant responded to this claim in his affidavit. He testified that at that meeting the plaintiff did not raise any claim or demand in relation to any alleged debt of him or the defendant towards him.  According to him, the opposite is true, since at that meeting the plaintiff asked him to help him financially in light of the legal proceedings he is dealing with and the costs involved (section 74).  The defendant also recorded the conversation and according to the Hebrew translation attached to his affidavit (Appendix 8), the plaintiff asked him for a favor because he was short on money: "I need a few cents to take care of my damn things and my life...  And this is my humble request." According to him, if the plaintiff believed that he was entitled to tens of millions of shekels, he would have demanded what he was entitled to and would not have asked for a favor or a few cents (section 75).
125. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff was confronted with this. He claimed that the attached transcript (the conversation was conducted in Georgian) was not a correct translation.  Therefore, he was referred to a transcript of the conversation that was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff (P/1), the content of which was similar.  In response, he replied that he did not come to the meeting to talk about his debt.
126. Indeed, the conversation shows that even though according to the plaintiff, the defendants owed him tens of millions of shekels at the time, he did not mention this debt in the conversation and asked for financial assistance (see pages 14-16 of the transcript of the conversation that was attached as Appendix 8 to the defendant's affidavit and on pages 79-81 of the transcript).
127. In fact, with the exception of correspondence sent by the plaintiff's attorneys beginning in 2019 (see Appendix 31 to his affidavit), the plaintiff did not present documents from which it is possible to learn about a written demand that he addressed to the defendant during the years that have passed since he claims that the transactions were made and agreed with him. This matter also works for the plaintiff's duty and for the rejection of his version.

The closeness that existed between the plaintiff and the defendant can be interpreted by Kuli Alma as a kind of partnership

128. As described above, the defendant did indeed share his business with the plaintiff and even paid him and his family significant sums. According to him, he acted in this way, not because the plaintiff was a partner entitled to 10% of the second diamond transaction, but at the request of his late father and out of a desire to assist the plaintiff and his family.  This, inter alia, is due to the plaintiff's drug addiction and the collapse of the family business.  The transfer of payments of such a large scale by the defendant to the plaintiff and his family is consistent with the fact that he was a wealthy businessman whom the plaintiff called an oligarch.  As stated above from his testimony, the defendant made sure that the plaintiff had a framework of daily employment.  The plaintiff became his companion; He came to his office in Herzliya every morning; accompany him for most of the day; He sat with him in his office in Herzliya; accompanied him on trips and meetings and performed various tasks assigned to him (see paragraph 37 of his affidavit).
129. As stated, the plaintiff claimed that only he and the defendant were present at the time the partnership agreement was entered into between them in connection with the second transaction. Therefore, there are no witnesses who can testify to what was agreed upon at that meeting insofar as it took place and to support his version.
130. The many witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff in connection with the second transaction testify to the conduct that seemed to them to be the conduct of partners. Indeed, in light of the close relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the fact that they conduct themselves together with the plaintiff being a companion of the defendant, this is how things can appear to the observer from the sidelines.  However, this is not enough to reach the conclusion that the plaintiff is a partner of the defendant in the second transaction and that he is entitled to 10% of the profits.  It has not escaped my notice that some of the witnesses testify that on various occasions the defendant told them that he and the plaintiff were partners, with the plaintiff's share in the partnership being 10%.  However, a comprehensive examination of all the testimonies, some of which contradict together with the rest of the evidence, it is not possible to reach the conclusion that the plaintiff wishes to reach.
131. Below are all the various testimonies brought by the parties in relation to the partnership agreement in the second transaction.

Testimony of Tami, the plaintiff's wife

132. Tami testified about the good and close relations between her plaintiff husband and the defendant and his family. In her affidavit, she described the family business they had called Dr.  Center - a chain of institutes in the field of aesthetic medicine.  According to her, thanks to the businesses and their involvement in the community, she and the plaintiff were able to ensure economic well-being and a high standard of living for their family.  For years, they owned luxurious cars, traveled abroad on vacations, and even traveled by private drivers.  They use it for their children to private schools and academic educational institutions in Israel and abroad (sections 3-7).  As for the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, she testified that "all along it was clear to everyone that Shabtai and Micho were one, and that they were not only good friends and relatives, but also business partners.  Saturn and Micho were close all the time and would talk about business frequently, and we would even laugh at them for spending more time together than we women" (section 28).  She testified that the couples, i.e., she and her husband and the defendant and his wife Laura, were also close and used to spend time together.  According to her, they used to travel together in the same car and thus she was exposed to many conversations that took place between the defendant and the plaintiff.  Regarding the first transaction, she testified that her plaintiff husband told her about the transaction in 2009.  The affidavit does not address the issue of the payment of the brokerage fees, which the plaintiff claims the defendant undertook to pay him (see paragraphs 36-38).
133. Later, with regard to the partnership agreement, she claimed that throughout the process, the defendant presented to her and her family members that he and the plaintiff were partners and noted to her that the plaintiff was entitled to payment of 10% of the profits from the diamond transaction and that he held $8 million for her family in respect of this transaction (see paragraph 48). According to her, the defendant talked a lot about the transaction and the partnership during the conversations and joint trips, and when she shared with the defendant that the plaintiff was traveling to Russia for extended periods, he replied that this was the price needed to make millions (section 49).  According to her, the defendant asked the plaintiff to wait with the withdrawal of the funds due to him from the diamond transaction and to keep them in the business for the purpose of carrying out additional transactions and increasing business activity in a way that would increase the profits they would ultimately enjoy.  The plaintiff left the funds in the business (paragraphs 52-53).
134. As stated, the plaintiff's wife was also not present at the meeting in which the matter was agreed. As for her testimony regarding the defendant's statement that the plaintiff was a 10% partner, the words in the affidavit were said without specifying exactly when the words were said.
135. In her cross-examination testimony, counsel for the defendants referred her to the sentence handed down by the Honorable Judge Hadassi-Herman on January 30, 2003, after Tami and her husband, the plaintiff, were convicted of offenses under the Value Added Tax Law.  This is in order to show that the court found that in those proceedings they claimed a difficult financial situation and that Tami and the plaintiff avoided telling the truth in the legal proceeding.  The Honorable Judge writes, among other things, in the sentence: "Despite attempts to evade giving a truthful answer on the subject of trips abroad, it appears that the defendants had eight joint trips even during those years in which it was alleged that the defendant 'left' and left the defendant with the children and with the financial debts." He continued: "The defendants' own arguments are inaccuracies and it seems that they are trying to hide from the eyes of every large part of the truth.  The defendant blames all his troubles on his illness, his addiction to drugs, but it was found that the offenses have been going on since the beginning of 1994.  The drug did not prevent the defendant from expanding and increasing the scope of his business at the expense of the State Treasury, and I did not hear from the defendant that she tried to stop him.  This court does not deal with "capacity investigations" and examining the contents of the defendants' pockets , but it cannot ignore an argument regarding a difficult financial situation, and on the other hand, to hear how the defendants try to evade testifying the truth regarding their many trips abroad and the possession of vehicles registered in the names of their young children of their age" (see Appendix 3 to the defendant's affidavit on pages 33 and 34).  Tami confronted this and rejected the claim of not telling the truth in that proceeding (see the transcript at pp.  14-16).
136. In addition, she was referred to the sentence given in the framework of the criminal proceedings against her and admitted that at that time the financial situation was difficult (see page 21, lines 3-30). She was also referred to the part in which it was written that she and her husband, the plaintiff, had accumulated heavy debts in the sum of approximately ILS 4 million (Appendix 1 to the defendant's affidavit, page 7), and replied that if it is recorded, then it may be true (page 22, lines 9-12).
137. During her testimony, she was asked about the bankruptcy proceedings that had been opened in her case. She did not recall such a procedure, but replied that she had held meetings and held meetings of suppliers and employees and reached arrangements with all of them (page 25, line 31 to page 26, line 16).  Subsequently, counsel for the defendants presented her with a report by the trustee for the execution of a creditors' arrangement (P/1), according to the report, the witness had personal debts in the sum of approximately ILS 1.5 million.  A perusal of B/1 shows that this was an application for a creditors' arrangement in accordance with section 19A of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, which was filed by it on August 27, 2009.  The report dealt with the completion of the creditors' settlement process and the release of the trustee from his position and was approved on January 3, 2012.
138. In her affidavit, Tami testified that after the criminal proceedings, she was determined to continue operating Dr. Center and even renovated one of the chain's branches, and that in this context, the defendant transferred a total of ILS 1.3 million to the business.  When asked whether the sum transferred by the defendant was intended to repay the debts to the business's creditors, she replied in the negative and insisted that it was used to renovate the branch.  Following her reply, she was referred to the affidavit of her son Yossi (mentioned above, N/5), in which he declared that the sum of ILS 1.3 million was used mainly for the purpose of executing her creditors' arrangement.  She replied that she was not familiar with the document; that the sum of ILS 1.3 million was not received twice, but only once; because she does not know what her son Yossi declared; that she was not involved in Yossi's business and yet confirmed that she had received the money from the defendant (page 27, line 29 to page 30, line 6).  Later, she was asked about N/5 in which Yossi stated that he had taken a personal loan from the defendant in the sum of ILS 1 million to cover his mother's debts and replied that she did not know what Yossi had done with the defendant and that she did not remember whether she had received the sum (page 30, lines 8-23).  Later on, she reiterated that with the money she received from the defendant she reopened the branch and that only because of the defendant's request did she close the business not because it was a failed business and that it was a successful business (page 33, line 30 to page 34, line 29).
139. She was also asked about what was stated in the affidavit, how she knew that her husband, the plaintiff, was a 10% shareholder, and she replied that the plaintiff had told her so, and that the defendant had told her that he held the plaintiff's $8 million with him. According to her, he told her this all the time, "in the morning, in the evening, in the afternoon since the defendant was released from prison until he got into a fight with Shabtai in 2012, every day.  Every day we would meet.  Every day.  Every day.  There was none, there was no day" (page 35, lines 29 to page 36, line 9).  Later on, she also testified that she knew about the partnership from the plaintiff and the defendant (page 37, lines 8-10).  According to her, she did not see any documents relating to the transaction (page 37, lines 11-16).  Asked if the plaintiff was eligible to receive $8 million, she replied, "I don't know how much, but he should have received a few million." She was referred to the fact that she testified in the affidavit that she heard the plaintiff and the defendant talk about the deal on the joint trips in which the defendant's wife also participated, and she replied in the affirmative, and that "we were together every day" (page 39, lines 9-16).  As will be detailed below, her testimony contradicted the testimony of Laura, the defendant's wife.
140. From all of the above, it is difficult to rely on Tami's testimony for the purpose of accepting the claim. This is the plaintiff's wife, who has a real interest in the outcome of the proceeding here.  Sums that the plaintiff will receive will also be used by it.  It should be remembered that the defendants are also conducting a financial lawsuit against her son in the amount of over ILS 10 million (Civil Case 56769-09-22 [Nevo]).  To this, it should be added that in the 2003 verdict it was determined that the witness had avoided telling the truth and that despite their claims of a difficult financial situation, she and her husband maintained a high standard of living.  This, in effect, is at the expense of the public by violating the law.  The witness's version of their good financial situation also contradicts the debt data of the family business, which stood at about ILS 4 million, as stated in the judgment from 2009 and stated in the report of the trustee of the creditors' arrangement, from which it is possible to learn about the many financial debts that she personally had.  Notwithstanding what was stated in the affidavit submitted by her son (P/5) according to which the sum transferred to her from the defendant was used mainly to finance the creditors' arrangement, she insisted that the sum was used to open the new branch.  Her statement in her cross-examination that she did not know about the affidavit (P/5) and what was stated in it when it was given in her favor and for the discharge of her personal debts, seems puzzling, to say the least.  To this, it should be added that her version of what she heard in Liora's presence was contradicted in Laura's testimony (more on this later).

Testimony of Yossi, the plaintiff's son

141. At the time of the lawsuit, Yossi was a young law student at the age of 26. As stated above, Yossi was not present at any of the meetings in which, according to the plaintiff, his entitlement to brokerage fees in the amount of $2.5 million for the first transaction and to being a partner with the defendant in the diamond transaction at a rate of 10% for the second transaction was determined.  He, too, like his mother, testified about the close ties that existed between the plaintiff and the defendant, who are, as stated, cousins.
142. Today, Yossi is in a dispute in which a monetary claim was filed against him by the defendants for the payment of ILS 10, 428, 400 (Civil Case 56769-09-22 [Nevo]). This, according to the defendants, was because he stole millions of dollars worth of diamonds from the defendant.  The proceeding is underway and there has not yet been an evidentiary stage.  It should be noted that in the statement of defense in the case here, the defendants argued that the lawsuit in question constitutes a failed attempt by the plaintiff to create a counterweight to the claim that was expected to be filed against his son Yossi.  This was after he did not act in accordance with the settlement agreement signed after a lawsuit was filed against him with the Diamond Exchange's arbitration institute.  In these circumstances, Yossi's testimony must be examined carefully.
143. As for the diamond deal, he testified that he became acquainted with it immediately after it was mined and that his father told him that Bezalel approached him through his brother Boris and told him about an excellent diamond deal that could lead to a handsome return. In fact, from the manner in which he describes things in his affidavit, it can be understood that he has no first-hand knowledge of the entire sequence of events in respect of the first transaction as someone who was present at the meeting or conversations that took place in real time.
144. His testimony in the affidavit indicates that the first time he was involved in the events was on the same day that the second deal was closed. According to him, on the same day, the plaintiff and the defendant called him together and asked him to come to their offices in Herzliya.  He testified as follows:

"56.When I arrived, there were Saturn, Micho, Bezalel, Thomas and his brother Timur Hinnaashvili in the room.  When I entered the room, Micho and Saturn told me, "Come and meet our new partners, " introduced me to the people in the room and told me that they had closed a diamond deal.

57. At all times, it was clear to everyone in the room that Saturn and Micho were partners, managing together and making decisions together.
58. Shabtai and Micho informed me in retrospect that they had decided to carry out the polishing and sale of the diamonds themselves, when it was agreed that Shabtai would be in charge of the operational side, while Micho would be, as usual, the financing side. In exchange for Shabtai's efforts, it was agreed that he would be entitled to a payment of 10% of the profits of the second transaction, in addition to the 5% he was supposed to receive for the first transaction.
59. Micho also repeated to me more than once that my father was entitled to receive 10% of the second transaction.  This was a fait accompli and a known fact, and Micho even convinced my parents to close Dr.  Center, claiming that it was a small amount of money compared to what he and Saturn were earning and were going to earn in the diamond deal, and that it was important that there were no "background noise" and disturbances. 
60. Yossi testifies in his affidavit cited above that he learned about the plaintiff's entitlement to receive 10% of the second transaction only in retrospect, after the plaintiff and the defendant informed him of this. Yossi did not specify in his testimony in the affidavit when he was told by the defendant that the plaintiff was a partner in the transaction at a rate of 10%.
61. Moreover, in his affidavit, Yossi testified about the execution of the diamond transaction. According to him, shortly after the meeting in which the second deal was closed, his father called him and asked him to come to their offices.  When he arrived, he explained to him, together with the defendant, that they were going to establish a designated company that would be registered in Israel, the defendant.  They asked to have their eyes.  They decided to appoint him as CEO.  He understood that they did not want their name to be associated with the business because of problems with tax reports that the business had Dr.  Center, which was also registered in the plaintiff's name, and because of the defendant's tax matters.  According to him, it was clear that the registration was for appearance only, and that in practice, it was the defendant and the plaintiff who would make the decisions regarding the business (paragraphs 60-62).
62. In his cross-examination testimony (in the transcript of his interrogation of July 2, 2025, page 75, it was mistakenly stated at the beginning of his testimony that it was the testimony of Asher Nahyasi), Yossi was asked about the differences between the version that was raised in his affidavit and the version presented in the statement of defense that he submitted in the proceeding in which he was sued by the defendants. In the same statement of defense, his father, the plaintiff, was not mentioned as the person who decided to establish the defendant and as the person who decided to appoint him as CEO.  It was also referred to the fact that in the same statement of defense he claimed that the defendant was the one who made all the decisions in the company and the one who gave instructions to the employees, etc.  When asked why the words were described differently from what was stated in his affidavit in the present case, he replied that he had said the words to the representative counsel and that he did not know why the words were not written down (see page 84, line 3 to page 85, line 16, and also see the statement of defense in the other case, paragraphs 48-51 - N/3).
63. It should be noted that Yossi testified in his affidavit (paragraph 63) that he held the shares in trust for the defendant only. If it was a company that was established by the plaintiff and the defendant for the purpose of executing the second transaction, then it was expected that the plaintiff would also be a shareholder at the rate of his share - 10% and that Yossi would also hold in trust the shares that constitute his father's share in the partnership.  In response to the defendants' counsel's question as to why the trust is only for the defendant, he replied that this was done because the plaintiff had just completed a settlement with VAT and the defendant had made a return resident arrangement and that this was liable to harm him.  When counsel for the defendants said that he could not understand why the loyalty was only to the defendant, he replied: "This is what they decided" (see page 86, lines 9-36).
64. It should also be noted that the plaintiff testified in his affidavit that he proposed that the company, i.e., the defendant, be registered in the name of both of them. According to him, the defendant told him that he was interested in registering the company in the name of his son Yossi and that it would not be registered in the name of one of them due to his fear of the authorities - both in light of the proceedings that were being conducted at the time regarding Dr.  Center's VAT reports and due to the returning resident arrangement that the defendant was working to obtain from the tax authorities.  The plaintiff relied on the defendant and agreed to his offer (section 94).  Shortly thereafter, Yossi signed documents stating that he held the defendant's shares in trust for the defendant and that he undertook to resign from his positions and transfer his shares to the defendant upon his first demand.  To the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, the holding of the shares in the trust was not reported anywhere (section 95).  Since the trust was not reported, it would have been expected that Yossi would hold his share of the company's shares in the trust for him as well.  As noted, this was not done without receiving a satisfactory answer to this question.
65. Yossi was asked about the source of his knowledge of the partnership agreement and replied that he knew about it from his father, the plaintiff, and that the defendant had told him dozens of times (page 95, lines 1-3). He also testified that the defendant introduced his father, the plaintiff, as his partner, that thanks to the assistance that the plaintiff gave to the defendant who was in prison, the defendant kissed him and told the family that he owed the plaintiff life, that they would start businesses in Israel, that the plaintiff would be close to him 24/7, that they were going to conquer the country and turn the plaintiff into number one (page 95, lines 23-34).
66. As for the salary paid to Yossi as part of his work as the defendant's manager, Yossi was asked about the increase in his salary and its setting at ILS 100, 000 and replied: "There was a payment that my mother had to pay for VAT. And my father and Micho were sitting and Micho said to him, 'Listen, if you pay it one shot watt, they knew you had money, they would sit here for you.  Yossi is a director of the company, this is also a recognized expense, this is also what the accountant said, we will raise his salary and he will pay, and that way you will not be harassed anymore" (page 109, lines 27-31).  These statements support the defendant's version of the assistance he provided to the plaintiff's family.
67. Later, when he was asked whether this was the defendant's way of helping the family, he replied that it was in fact money that would have reached his father as part of his accounting with the defendant and against the profits of his father the plaintiff (see page 110, lines 32-34 and page 111, lines 23-26).
68. As part of his cross-examination, Yossi was presented with the affidavit he signed (P/5), to which an appendix was attached - a document detailing 3 sums totaling ILS 1, 300, 000 that were transferred by Kitaim to the company Yossi Medical Center Ltd. The letter was addressed to him.  In his reply, he confirmed that he knew and remembered the appendix that was attached to the affidavit (page 112, lines 17-18).  Regarding the affidavit, he replied that he could not say whether the document was authentic.  However, he confirmed that his signature appears on the affidavit.  After reviewing it, he was asked if he knew him and replied that he wasn't sure: "It could be that he didn't, I really don't want to say something that I'm not sure.  But on the second page (the appendix) I completely agree.  I also remember it" (page 113, lines 13-23).  It should be noted that at the hearing, counsel for the defendants argued that this was a document that was disclosed by them in the process of discovering the documents, and that no argument was raised regarding the authenticity of that document until the hearing.  Later, Yossi was asked about the same document over and over again.  Except for statements that he did not understand the document or that he did not know why it was drawn up in 2013, I did not find that it was an inauthentic document.  This is especially after the witness confirmed that his signature appears on the document, that the company Yossi Medical Center received the funds and that the appendix detailing the transfer of the funds is known to him and he approves it (pages 114-120).
69. In summary, in view of the legal proceedings being conducted between the defendants and Yossi, in the framework of which he is sued, as aforesaid, to pay the defendants the sum of over ILS 10 million, and in view of the closeness he has to the plaintiff and the interest he has in accepting the claim, it is difficult to rely on his testimony as proof of the plaintiff's claim that he was a partner in the second diamond transaction as alleged. To this difficulty must be added the substantial differences between the version detailed in the statement of defense that he filed in the other proceeding, according to which the defendant was the one who managed the defendant and made the decisions therein, as opposed to what was stated in the affidavit in which it was claimed that it was his father and the defendant who jointly managed the defendant and made the decisions therein, and in view of the fact that his holding of the shares in trust was carried out solely for the defendant and not also for his father, in accordance with the amount of his share as alleged.  These words are more consistent with the defendant's version.  To this, it should be added that his testimony strengthened the defendant's version that he assisted the plaintiff and his family by transferring money.

Testimony of Bezalel Kricheli

155. In his affidavit, Bezalel testified that in accordance with the change in the outline, the defendant would become the owner of the entire diamonds in exchange for the amount he paid and an additional sum of about $20 million to be paid to them as initiation fees (section 18). In addition, he testified that in the new outline, the defendant and the plaintiff were personally involved in all stages of the transaction (section 22).  According to him, although he himself was no longer a partner in the transaction after the defendant purchased the diamonds, he remained to work and assist the defendant and the plaintiff in executing the transaction in exchange for a commission of 1.5 percent that the defendant paid him (see paragraphs 23, 25).  He testified that in the course of his work in executing the transaction, he knew and the defendant also explicitly told him that the plaintiff was a partner with him in the diamond transaction and was entitled to a percentage of the profits from it.  This is in addition to the initial commission to which he was entitled together with Boris (section 26).  He also wrote in his affidavit that every time he came to Israel, he met with the plaintiff and the defendant.  On many occasions, the defendant told him that the plaintiff was his partner (section 27).  According to him, in one of the meetings the plaintiff told the defendant that he was interested in withdrawing money from the diamond deal in order to buy him and Yossi assets, and the defendant advised him not to do so (paragraph 28).  He added that the defendant had shared other projects with the plaintiff and mentioned a casino deal in Romania in 2011 in which the plaintiff was a partner.
156. As stated above, the defendant did indeed share the business activity with the plaintiff and even transferred large sums to him and his family members as detailed in detail above. However, according to him, he did so out of a desire to help the plaintiff and his family following his addiction to drugs and in light of the economic collapse of the family business.  The observer from the side could certainly have been impressed by the plaintiff's conduct, the nature of the relations between them, the actions taken by the plaintiff, etc., that they were a type of accomplices.  Even the defendant's statement that the plaintiff is his partner does not itself indicate the nature and content of the partnership and that he is a partner at the rate of 10% of the profits in the second transaction and that he is entitled to additional payments beyond those he received.  The claim that the plaintiff was a partner in the casino transaction in Romania also does not prove that he was a partner in the second transaction.
157. In his cross-examination, Bezalel was referred to a transcript of a conversation recorded by the plaintiff, from which it emerged that he did not know the details of the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant. The following are the following:

"Adv. Weissman: So I stayed with Micho until the end, now he continues, "Now my summary with Michael was that you don't know but you know that I am" and then you say to him "I don't know", right?