Caso Civil (Tel Aviv) 75948-12-20 Shabtai Alon contra Michael Mirilashvili - part 7

The witness, Mr. Kricheli: Well.

Adv. Weissman: So I'm telling you that in that conversation I see that you tell Saturn that you don't know what his agreement is with Micho.

The witness, Mr. Kricheli: How many percent, of course I don't know, I just knew he was a partner, that's all, what percentage is he's not obligated to tell me how much he is a partner, 5%, 10%, I have no idea. 

Adv. Weissman: We continue on the next page, we continue to talk about it, you say to him at the beginning of the session, "I don't know how you worked, I know one thing, you and Boris should have received a certain amount of 10%", so I don't understand, do you know or do you don't know?

Witness, Mr. Kricheli: Again 10% (for the first deal, the undersigned's comment) I closed so I know they are supposed to get forgiveness for their partnership (the second deal - the undersigned's comment) I don't know how many percent they closed from where I'm supposed to know I just knew he was a 100% partner, two, 5, I have no idea.

Adv. Weissman: So if I understand correctly, you're making a distinction here between two things, there's what you closed 10%, and you say, I don't know what other agreements he had with him. 

The witness, Mr. Kricheli: No, not what agreements I knew he was a partner, how much I don't know."

(See page 29, lines 20-37).

158. In summary, even from Bezalel's testimony, it is not possible to reach the conclusion that the plaintiff is a partner of the defendant in the second diamond transaction at the rate of 10% as alleged. The witness can testify about the cooperation and activity of the plaintiff, the very existence of which the defendant does not deny.  Therefore, his testimony does not indicate that the plaintiff is entitled to additional payments beyond what he received.

Testimony of Mrs. Yulia Pritzker

159. In a motion to summon witnesses filed on September 16, 2024, the plaintiff requested that Ms. Pritzker be summoned as a witness on his behalf, not by means of an affidavit. The plaintiff justified his request, inter alia, by the fact that as an employee of the defendant, Ms. Pritzker was familiar with the nature of the relationship between him and the defendant during the relevant period and the plaintiff's part and involvement in these matters and in the diamond transactions in particular.  At the hearing held on December 2, 2024, the prosecutor was asked why he wanted to summon the witness Yulia Pritzker to testify, and he replied: "She was not in the meetings, she knew everything because she works and manages all the funds" (page 19, lines 31-32).  As stated, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, an affidavit was filed by Ms. Pritzker on behalf of the defendants.  In her testimony in the affidavit, she testified that she was not familiar with the plaintiff's involvement in the diamond transaction and that she did not know whether Shabtai was a partner of Michael, as he claims (paragraph 7).  From her cross-examination, it was not possible to learn otherwise.

Testimony of Ms. Laura Mirilashvili, the defendant's wife

160. In a request to summon witnesses filed by the plaintiff on September 16, 2024, he also requested that the defendant's wife be summoned. According to him, the witness had a close relationship with him and his wife and was present at many conversations that took place between him and the defendant regarding their business affairs.  According to him, Ms. Mirlishvili knows and is well acquainted with the nature of the relationship and she herself "pushed" for the diamond deal to be closed.  In the hearing held on December 2, 2024, the plaintiff was asked whether Ms. Mirilashvili was present at the meetings that took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, in which they reached agreements on the subject of the lawsuit, and he answered in the negative (page 19, lines 17-19).
161. In a short affidavit between four counts, Ms. Mirilashvili testified that she was not involved in the defendant's business at all and that he did not discuss his business matters with her. She was surprised by her summons to testify since she was never involved in the defendant's business and the hearings in connection with them, and therefore could not assist in clarifying the dispute.  She testified that the defendant's attorneys informed her that Tami claimed in her affidavit that when they went out together and drove in the same car, Tami was exposed to conversations between the defendant and the plaintiff regarding what she calls "their joint business." She said: "This testimony of Tami is not true.  There have been times when we have traveled together to social events, but Michael does not discuss his business affairs while he is in my company and in the company of other people.  I do not recall any conversation that touched on business, and in particular not a conversation in which it was stated that Shabtai was Michael's partner in any business" (section 4).  During her interrogation, she reiterated that she does not interfere in her husband's business and that she does not participate in business meetings (page 8, lines 1-10).  She was asked about the plaintiff's wife's claim that during the joint trips the plaintiff and the defendant talked about the business between them, and in fact repeated her testimony in the affidavit (page 9, lines 27-35).  It was not possible to learn from her testimony what the plaintiff sought to prove through her.

Testimony of Asher Nahyasi

162. Asher Nahiasi, the gemologist who was summoned to testify on behalf of the plaintiff, did not submit an affidavit and was interrogated in the main interrogation by the plaintiff's attorney. It should be noted that in the hearing held on December 2, 2024, the plaintiff was asked about Mr. Nahyasi's involvement and his knowledge of his entitlement to payment.  He replied that he did not participate in the meetings in which things were agreed.  Regarding the change in the outline, he replied that he knew about it from him (page 19, lines 15-16).
163. He testified that he traveled with the plaintiff to Russia. According to him, he was the professional and the one who would decide what to buy when traveling to Russia (transcript of July 2, 2025, page 3, lines 26-28).  He testified that the plaintiff accompanied him on these trips.  When asked what the plaintiff's role was, he replied that he understood that he was working with the defendant (page 3, lines 33-36).  When asked how the plaintiff works with the defendant, he replied that he had no idea (page 3, line 39 to page 40, line 1).  He was confronted with a conversation he had with Yossi, the plaintiff's son, in which he said that he understood that the plaintiff was also an accomplice.  He replied that he did not know that the conversation had been recorded and that he should have known that it was being recorded (page 5, lines 38-39).  It should be noted that the transcript of the conversation to which the witness was referred (Appendix 27 to the plaintiff's affidavit on page 278) does not indicate first-hand knowledge that the plaintiff was a partner of the defendant.  During the conversation, Nakhiasi himself testified that he himself was a partner, when he did not remember the extent of his share in the partnership - 25% or 50% (page 277, lines 18-25).  When the plaintiff asked who was an accomplice, he replied that he knew that the plaintiff was an accomplice and that the plaintiff had told him that he was an accomplice (page 277, line 26 to page 278, line 3).  Later, in response to Yossi's question, he replied: "I understood that my father was also a partner " (page 278, lines 21-22).  From his testimony, it was not possible to reach the conclusion that the plaintiff was indeed a partner in the diamond transaction in which he was entitled to receive 10% of its profits.
164. It should be noted that the plaintiff claimed that Asher who agreed to testify received "cold feet" due to his fear of the defendant and therefore did not remember many details. In his testimony, Asher was asked whether he was afraid to testify and he answered in the negative (page 3, line 1).  According to him, he had suffered a stroke about 4 months earlier, and hence the memory problem (see page 6, lines 30-37).

Testimony of the plaintiff's daughter Anat Alon-Beck

165. The plaintiff attached an affidavit of his eldest daughter, Professor Anat Alon-Beck. She testified to the economic well-being and the high standard of living in which she and her brother grew up.  She also testified in her affidavit about the close relationship that existed between her father and the defendant.  According to her, the defendant and her father had a joint business activity and her father became the defendant's right-hand man.  According to her, although in 2006 she moved to the United States due to her studies and has been living there ever since, she would come to Israel for frequent and prolonged visits during which she met with her father and the defendant.  She also testified that she talks to her parents and siblings on a daily basis.  According to her, she knew from the defendant's representations that the defendant and her father were business partners and close relatives like brothers (section 26).  Regarding the diamond deal that is the subject of the lawsuit, she testified that during 2009, her father and mother called her excitedly and told her that her father had closed a once-in-a-lifetime deal in the diamond field.  Her father told her that he was supposed to receive a brokerage fee.  She did not specify in the affidavit from whom he was supposed to receive the brokerage fees and how much (see paragraphs 27-28).  Later, she said that after the deal was unsuccessful and the diamonds were not sold, it was decided to change the structure of the deal and that her father was supposed to receive 10%.  She did not mention in the affidavit where she got this information, which she included in the affidavit.  As stated, the plaintiff's daughter did not participate in the meeting and therefore her entire testimony in this matter is based on hearsay testimony from what she was told.
166. In her cross-examination, she testified that she knew about the transactions from both her father and the defendant. According to her, the defendant told her that he and her father were partners (page 47, lines 30-32).  When asked about the financial difficulties that the family business has encountered, she replied that there have been ups and downs and that it is possible that the business has run into difficulties (page 49, lines 1-20).  As for the proceeding of her mother's creditors' arrangement, she replied that there was indeed a proceeding against her mother in 2009 and that she does not remember what was ruled and how it ended (page 50, lines 1-2).  She was asked about her testimony about living in financial well-being and at a high level, despite the appointment of the trustee for her mother's creditors' arrangement.  Counsel for the defendants referred her to the trustee's report and asked if her mother's debts were known to her.  She replied: "I'm not connected to it, no.  I did not know" (page 52, lines 24-35).
167. When asked about the financial assistance granted by the defendant in the sum of ILS 1.3 million, she replied that she was not familiar with it (page 57, lines 1-10). According to her, the defendant said many times that her father, the plaintiff, was his partner (page 59, lines 16-27).  According to her, her father and the defendant had many businesses together , "many different businesses" (page 60, line 3).  When asked whether she had ever seen any document other than an agreement, such as an email, letter, record, protocol or decision from which it is possible to learn about a partnership agreement in a transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant, she replied in the negative (page 61, line 37 to page 62, line 4).  She testified that she begged her father to arrange for a written agreement with the defendant, and he replied that this was not possible with the defendant (page 60, lines 35-30, page 61, line 23).  When asked if she knew that her father had received hundreds of thousands of shekels for the trips he made to Russia in 2011, she replied that she only knew that her father had been paid for business plane tickets and nothing more (page 63, line 1-15).
168. Her testimony revealed that despite her claim that she made frequent visits and made daily phone calls, she did not know anything substantial. As stated, the relationship of kinship and the fact that the defendant shared with the plaintiff his various businesses, paid him substantial sums of money, do not constitute proof that the plaintiff was indeed a partner in the second transaction as claimed by him.  In circumstances in which she pleaded that her father take care of the written agreement, it would have been expected that the plaintiff would make sure to document the matter in real time, whether by recording the defendant, registering a memorandum, sending an email or any other written document with which he could support his claim.  This was not done.

Testimony of Reuven Alashvili

169. In his affidavit, Reuven Elashvili testified about the close relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. According to him, the plaintiff and the defendant were involved in business and in 1995 opened and managed a number of gambling houses in different cities.  In this framework, they were partners at equal rates (section 6).  According to him, in 2010 the plaintiff told him that he and the defendant had entered into a partnership in a large diamond deal.  He testified that the plaintiff told him that he and the defendant were forming a team of experts to help them execute the diamond transaction and offered him to be their confidant and professional liaison in a diamond manufacturing plant in St.  Petersburg, Russia.  As a result, he met with the plaintiff and the defendant at their offices in Herzliya.  During the meeting, he was presented with the deal.  He testified that the plaintiff was very dominant in the meeting.  He was also informed by the defendant that the plaintiff and the defendant were partners in the transaction (paragraphs 10-11).  He testified that he served as a foreman on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant in the diamond factory (section 15) and that the plaintiff would come to the factory many times and ask them questions and make various decisions (section 16).  When he himself would arrive in Israel, he would go straight from the airport to the offices of the plaintiff and the defendant at the Ramat Gan Stock Exchange and update them with the details (section 18).  According to him, in all the meetings the plaintiff and the defendant were conducted as partners of equal status and were jointly present.  This is also how they behaved between them, so he was explicitly told by them, and this is how they broadcast it outwardly (section 18).  According to him, after the end of the work when he returned to Israel, the plaintiff and the defendant did not fulfill their promise to pay him a bonus and did not integrate him into the diamond business in Israel (section 23).  In one of the conversations, when he demanded what he deserved, the defendant denied the promise he had made.  In light of this, he was angry with them and did not speak to them for a long time (section 24).  Following the defendant's denial of the promise, it was clear to him that the day would come when the defendant would act in the same way towards the plaintiff, and he even hurled it at the plaintiff (section 25).
170. In his cross-examination, he testified that he did not know that the plaintiff suffered from drug addiction and that he learned about this from rumors. He also did not know that the defendant had assisted the plaintiff; that Dr.  Center's family business had reached a financial collapse; On the criminal proceedings taken against the plaintiff and his wife and on the creditors' settlement process (minutes of July 9, 2025, page 2, line 36 to page 3, line 13).  He was referred to the fact that he stated in the affidavit that the meeting took place in their offices in Herzliya and was asked if he knew that it was the defendant's offices.  To this, he replied that he did not know whose ministry he was (page 4, lines 30-36).  When asked about the fact that in his affidavit he wrote in paragraph 11 that he had been informed by Micho that he and Shabtai were partners in the transaction, he replied that it was not Micho who said this, but that Shabtai said and Micho confirmed.  Later, he said: "Shabtai told me they sat down, I sat in front of them at the table, and Saturn told me that we were partners in this deal, and then Michael did it with his head, yes, right" (page 5, lines 31-32).  When asked if he knew what Shabtai's percentage was, he said that he wrote in the affidavit that the distribution was 10%-90% (page 6, lines 2-7).  It should be noted that this material fact was not written in the affidavit and in fact the first time he said this was in the cross-examination.  It is necessary to note that his testimony in the affidavit that "in all the work meetings we held, Micho and Shabtai conducted themselves as partners of equal status" (paragraph 18) is inconsistent with the manner in which 10% was distributed to the plaintiff and 90% to the defendant.  In any event, this essential detail was not mentioned in the affidavit of his main witness.  The very fact that he made his first statement during his cross-examination was surprising when the source of his alleged knowledge of this information was not clarified.  I will note that the plaintiff himself did not testify in his affidavit that this was the case.

Testimony of Moshe Mazor

171. Moshe Mazor testified in his affidavit that he has known the plaintiff for many years, that he is a close friend of his son Yossi, and that he currently works in Yossi's diamond business. According to him, he knew about the close relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and that they had joint businesses.  Over the years, he saw the plaintiff and the defendant together both socially and commercially and they seemed inseparable (section 7).  He testified that he would come to the defendant's offices in Herzliya from time to time.  During his visits, the plaintiff and the defendant sat together in the same room, consulting with each other and conducting their business together.  It was clear to him that they were partners and it was clear that the defendant respected the plaintiff.  According to him, the defendant's attitude toward the plaintiff was different from his attitude toward other people who would visit the offices for business purposes - the attitude of a partner.  He knew that the way to reach the defendant for third parties was through the plaintiff (section 8).  According to him, after he was discharged from his regular service in the Air Force, Yossi approached him and offered him a job for the defendant.  Yossi told him that his father had brought the defendant a large diamond transaction in Russia, that they were partners in the transaction, and that the defendant had been established for the purpose of executing it (section 9).  He testified that it was evident from the conduct of the plaintiff and the defendant that they were partners.  They would come together to the defendant's offices and sit together at every significant meeting.  From the conversation between them, it was clear that they were speaking as two business partners (section 11).  He also testified that each of them brought people on his behalf to work for the defendant (paragraph 12).  He worked for the defendant between the years 2011-2014 and according to his knowledge, the vast majority of the defendant's merchandise originated from the diamond transaction (section 13).  As part of his work, he dealt with the concentration of the defendant's financial information.  According to him, he would receive data from the defendant's employees, coordinate it and study it for the purpose of presenting it to the plaintiff and the defendant on a daily basis.  He did not have access to the company's bank account and received the information from the person who actually transferred and managed the funds (section 14).  During his work routine, he worked regularly with Yossi.  The plaintiff and the defendant used to meet with him and Yossi at the defendant's offices on a daily basis in order to obtain financial information.  In the meetings, the defendant used to ask incisive questions in order to obtain information.  Rarely, these meetings were held without the plaintiff.  On a number of occasions, he and Yossi traveled to meet with the plaintiff and the defendant in the evening on matters related to the defendant (section 15).  From his wishes and the defendant's conduct, it was clear that it was important for him to control the details and information, and for this purpose, a binder with reports was prepared for him.  During his work, he underwent two polygraph tests, and from time to time tests were conducted to detect wiretapping in all of the defendant's offices, and cameras and computers were replaced (section 16).  In 2014, he left the defendant together with Yossi, who resigned from the company.  The defendant, through his men, offered him to stay, and he refused (section 17).
172. When asked in his cross-examination how it was clear that the plaintiff and the defendant were partners, he reiterated that it was clear from the conversations he overheard. He clarified that he had not heard conversations in which there was talk of percentage spreads (page 72, lines 29-32).  He confirmed that he had not seen any paperwork, partnership agreement, or documents such as emails, WhatsApp, minutes, or any other written document establishing a partnership (page 72, line 38 to page 73, line 4).  He was asked if he remembered that the defendant blessed a groom on Shabbat and said he did.  According to him, the defendant said , "How happy he is to have such a family, such friends, such partners, how much a drinker loves him as a brother, and more than a brother.  He remembers the words well.  I understand Georgian very well" (page 73, lines 28-30).  The witness did not know during the period of his employment that Yossi held the company's shares in trust (page 74, line 31 to page 75, line 3).
173. The witness as aforesaid did not see any document from which it is possible to learn about the partnership as alleged, and this is for the entire period during which he worked for the defendant. As noted above, the defendant shared his activity with the plaintiff, and therefore, in view of the intensity of the relationship and the close relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, it is possible to understand why this was the way things looked to him.  Even the statement that the defendant in the incident defined the plaintiff as a partner does not attest to the nature of the partnership and its content, and it does not indicate that the plaintiff was a partner in the second transaction, as the plaintiff claims.

Testimony of Eli Bag

174. His testimony dealt with the casino deal in Romania. He testified that he knew that the plaintiff and the defendant were business partners and that they were interested in entering the gambling business in Europe, and therefore, he knew that the opportunity would interest them.  He spoke about the transaction in which the plaintiff was a partner at a rate of 20% and the defendant at the rate of 40%.  According to him, it was clear to him from the conduct and conversations with them that they were partners in other business projects.  According to him, about six months later, following disagreements with the defendant, it was agreed that the defendant would buy his share in the casino so that he would become a 60% partner.  According to him, the defendant paid him the sum of 300, 000 euros and the balance of 150, 000 euros he has not paid to this day.  He testified that in retrospect he learned from the plaintiff that the defendant closed the casino because his nephews were caught with black money.
175. In his cross-examination, he was asked whether he knew about various joint transactions of the plaintiff and replied that he did not know and that he was only involved in casinos (see page 35, lines 28-38). Later, he was asked about the diamond deal, the subject of the lawsuit, and replied , "I don't care about it, " "I don't know about this deal, " and that he was not involved in the diamond deal (page 36, lines 3-9).  When asked about his statement in the affidavit that the plaintiff was the defendant's confidant and business partner, he replied that he was referring only to casino matters and that he knew nothing about other matters (page 37, lines 9-12).  Regarding the statement that the casino was closed because the defendant's nephews were caught with black money, he replied that he knew it from the news (page 37, lines 25-26).  Later, he testified that he knew this from rumors, from television, and from the plaintiff (page 39, lines 11-12).
176. It was not possible to learn anything from Beg's testimony related to the diamond transaction and any agreement that existed between the plaintiff and the defendant on this matter.
177. In summary, none of the witnesses mentioned above were present at that meeting in which the plaintiff claimed that he had agreed with the defendant that he was a 10% partner in the second diamond transaction. Most of the witnesses spoke of the fact that in terms of the conduct of the plaintiff and the defendant, they looked like accomplices.  This statement is also true according to the defendant's version of his motives for sharing his activity with the plaintiff and the intensity of the relationship between them.  Being partners in other ventures, such as the casino venture, is also part of the same conduct that can influence the perception of those around them that they are partners.  A statement by the defendant in one event or another that the plaintiff is his partner does not indicate that he is a partner in the diamond transaction and that he is entitled to receive 10% of the profits therein.  This is especially the case, in light of the significant sums received by the plaintiff and his family members, as detailed at length above.  The testimonies of Tami and Yossi regarding things that the defendant allegedly said in their presence regarding the plaintiff's share in the transaction are insufficient, contradict other testimonies in the case and are inconsistent with the fact that Yossi held the defendant's shares in trust only for the defendant and not for the plaintiff's share in the alleged transaction.  In the absence of a written agreement, in the absence of other documents created during the period of the engagement, in view of the defendant's version that was not contradicted and gave an explanation of the conduct between the parties, in view of the special relationship between the parties and the analysis of all the evidentiary material, it is not possible to reach the conclusion that the plaintiff is a partner of the defendant in the diamond transaction and therefore, his claim is dismissed.

Conclusion

178. In light of all of the above, I am not persuaded that the defendant undertook to pay the plaintiff the brokerage fees for the first transaction and that he was a partner of the defendant in the second transaction at a rate of 10%. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.
179. As for legal expenses, Regulation 152 of the Civil Procedure Regulations states that "at the end of the hearing, the court will award reasonable and fair costs, unless it finds that there are special reasons not to charge for such expenses."
180. Regarding the purpose of the costs ruling, Regulation 151(a) states that "the obligation of a party to pay expenses is intended to indemnify the opposing party for its expenses in the proceeding, taking into account its results, the resources required to manage it, and the conduct of the parties." In accordance with Regulation 151(b): "The court's decision regarding the award of expenses and their rate will express the proper balance between ensuring the right of access to the courts, protecting the property right of the individual and maintaining equality between the parties."
181. As for the amount of expenses, the rule is that the winning litigant is entitled to a judgment of real costs. This is subject to their reasonableness, proportionality and necessity for the conduct of the proceeding, with each case being examined on its own merits.  Among other things, consideration must be given to the manner in which the proceeding was conducted, the ratio between the relief requested and the one received, the amount of expenses, the complexity and importance of the case, the amount of work invested, etc.  The expenses are intended to indemnify the opposing party for his expenses in the proceeding, with the default being a judgment of real expenses (see: Civil Appeal 7627/20 Eisler Management Company Ltd.    Tefen Medical Ltd., paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge Amit [Nevo] (February 24, 2022)).
182. In this case, a claim was filed with the District Court in the sum of ILS 50, 000, 000. The lawsuit was filed in December 2020 and was conducted for almost 6 years, with part of it being conducted before a previous panel.  There were 8 hearings in the case, of which 3 were evidentiary hearings.  The parties conducted mediation proceedings that were unsuccessful.  Multiple requests were filed in the case.  Despite the split hearing, 9 witnesses were heard on behalf of the plaintiffs, including the plaintiff.  Due to the plaintiffs' request to summon Ms. Pritzker and the defendant's wife for questioning, affidavits were also submitted, about which they were cross-examined.  The parties submitted written summaries.  The defendants attached to their summaries documents from which it can be learned that they bore the payment of fees, including VAT, in the sum of ILS 1, 955, 447, as well as the payment of expenses in the sum of ILS 22, 969.  All of these require the plaintiff to be charged with significant expenses.
183. On the other hand, the ruling of the sum must also take into account the right of access to the courts. Ruling on expenses in huge sums is liable to be a paralyzing factor, so that the litigant will be afraid of filing a lawsuit against capitalists just for fear that he will be charged with expenses that he will not be able to meet.  The amount of VAT included in the fee invoices must also be reduced.
184. After examining all of the above, I order the plaintiff to pay expenses in the total sum of ILS 1, 000, 000. The amount will be paid within 30 days.

.  Given today, July 09, 2026, in the absence of the parties.