For example, in the accession documents, it is explicitly stated, "These provisions, in and of themselves, do not constitute a determination of the ratio of ownership of the funds. .. that were in the account or in the hands of the bank at the time of that death" (p. 17 N/2), whereas the defendant believes that he received a gift immediately, he did not make legal documents with respect to these rights: "Q: You did not change, did you not update wills? A: I did not touch anything. . .. Q: Do you have a will at all? A: I don't have a will" (p. 193, paras. 15-22).
For example, the defendant believes that the account balances the deprivation, knows that his father has other accounts (the defendant - p. 144, paras. 23-26), including millions of shekels (P/10), agrees that the funds in the union account can be used by the father even in full: "Q: But if you need 6 million shekels to balance the historical deprivation and therefore give it to you as a gift immediately, then let's assume that the father needs emergency surgery. Is that money coming out of Y.'s pocket? A: It's money that comes out of Y.'s pocket together and each one separately, that's what is written in the agreement. .. In what we signed at the bank. . Q: If we need an operation at a cost of 6 million? A: Then we will leave my father to die?.. It could be in a certain hypothetical situation that I might have stayed or alternatively I would have gone to court to get relief on the parents' other accounts to get the money out of there, but I didn't think about it at the time" (Defendant - p. 142, S. 8 - P. 143, S. 6). Moreover, given his position as aforesaid, how is it consistent with the agreement on withdrawal restrictions over ILS 10,000 only with the consent of the guardians and an action on credit of up to ILS 10,000 with the signature of one of them (P/7; the plaintiff - p. 12, paras. 7-10, p. 56, paras. 22-25).
For example, in his statement to the brothers' group on May 30,2016, the defendant updated on his conduct vis-à-vis Union Bank: "I informed them that as soon as there is a probate order, I will withdraw all our money from there, including the managed account" (P/4 of defendant 2's affidavit). In his cross-examination, the defendant explained: "You can also phrase it 'ours' - of my father and mine, to the same extent... The word 'our' is not something that can make a generalization about the whole world and his wife... Q: You are actually trying to tell us that you did not mean "our", "we", "this group", but "ours", "me and my father"? A: My father and I do. Including the managed account" (p. 137, s. 11 - p. 138, s. 22). On the other hand, in a correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant in May 2019 (P/9), the plaintiff wrote: "Antitrust is an account of all of us, I don't understand what the problem is for me (or K., if he had asked) to look at this account (the mistake in the original-S.A.)" To which the defendant responded: "The account is not ours... My account and my father's, and this is according to the decision of my mother and father about 4.5 years ago. ... The money that goes into the account after ----- is shared by all of us. When the day comes, we will see what we do. Of course, if you want to see the bill, I'd love for us to meet and see what you want."