For example, when the defendant was asked to give the plaintiff a code for the account, he refused on the grounds that: "The codes are shared with my personal and business account and cannot be separated" (Notice dated December 29,2018 P/17; p. 131, para. 26). It was expected that the answer would be different, especially when the defendant testified in his interrogation: "Why should I give it to him? It's an account I own, why should I give him a code" (p. 132, paras. 13-14). But the defendant refrained from doing so, without a satisfactory explanation: "Q: Why didn't you write to A simply? A: Because that's how I felt... I don't answer from my stomach and from nothing, at that moment I answered him so that he would get off me, that's all... Icouldn't prevent the codes? Q: But you didn't say these things in real time. A: Why should I give him my codes? Q: One hundred percent, but you did not write" (Defendant - p. 133, paras. 1-2,19-20, p. 134, paras. 3-14).
- The defendant refrained from reporting to third parties the account and the funds accumulated in it as belonging to him. The defendant, in his capacity as guardian of his father's property affairs, jointly and severally, with the plaintiff by virtue of an appointment order dated May 3,2017 (Guardianship 20073-01-17 [Nevo]) (P/1, P/7), submitted an affidavit in support of the detail submitted to the Custodian General, in which he declared that the funds in the Union account were part of the father's property, without any claim to his own rights to these funds: "My father and I were 100% owners jointly and severally in the account" (p. 135, paras. 23-24; P/10). Thus, the defendant, who is engaged independently as a travel agent through a limited company (p. 187, paras. 21-24, p. 188, paras. 4-5), agreed that it is "reasonable" that the funds should be reported in the framework of a declaration of capital (p. 189, paras. 6-8). At first he did not rule out the possibility that the funds were reported, but later changed his version: "I am almost certain that it is not. Q: Let's look into it. A: I have to think about it, it may be... I did not make a declaration of capital after I was attached to the account" (defendant - p. 189, paras. 23-25, p. 190, s. 4). It was expected that the defendant would produce, on his own initiative, the relevant declaration of capital, or alternatively present a reference from the accountant according to which she was aware of the existence of the funds, but they were not reported at all: "Q: Do you know that in your personal report you have to show your income every year? A: Yes. Q: It can be from occupation, from occupation, from securities, from currencies. Did you report that in your personal reports? A: No. .. My accountant knows that there is such a thing, that there is such an account. In my opinion, she did not report it... She knows that I have, I said. In my opinion, she did not report it, I did not have a declaration of capital and this income, in practice" (Defendant - p. 190, paras. 18-23, p. 191, paras. 18-20,25-26).
- If indeed the purpose of the combination was to balance previous gifts, it would have been expected that the defendant would act clearly and transparently to realize that balance. It is difficult to accept a situation in which the defendant knows that he was allegedly given a significant gift intended to balance his share in relation to his brother, and that his relations with his brothers are normal (p. 180, s. 12), did not tell his brothers about it in real time (p. 181, s. 1, p. 182, s. 1-3), and even continued to refrain from informing them of the matter until 2019. In view of the defendant's conduct, it is more likely that the plaintiff and defendant 2's version that their mother informed them of the defendant's addition to the account for convenience purposes only (plaintiff - pp. 15,17-13, p. 14, paras. 2-5, pp. 14-15,7-6,15-15; defendant 2 - p. 60, paras. 12-16, pp. 8-9,64). Moreover, if the defendant believed that the mother would inform his brother, as she had "promised" (p. 180, paras. 14), it would have been expected that the exchange of messages between the parties, as quoted above, would be completely different.
- In light of all of the above, I am persuaded that the defendant is well aware, that he did not receive a gift immediately, and he is trying to attribute to the attachment to the account a proprietary meaning retroactively rather than one that reflects the purpose that was based on it in real time.
Misdeeds
- With regard to other arguments that were raised, I will address briefly. The claim of delay would have been better if it had not been claimed, especially when the defendant refrained from placing the claim of receiving the funds in the account as a gift to his brother until in 2019. The argument that the longevity clause constitutes a kind of will was rejected in the case law, emphasizing that: "Even if the form includes a clause of this type, it cannot be considered as a substitute for a will (Sharon at p. 676), since, as stated, the will must be prepared only in accordance with the requirements set out in the law" [LA 4739/15 [Nevo] para. 6].
Conclusion
- Therefore, I hold as follows:
- The claim is accepted; I declare that the sole owner of the account At Union Bank, Branch XX (XX), Account Number XX, And the money accumulated in it is 11:7"30"ז XX.
- I require the defendant to submit within 30 days a full report of all the transactions in the account since the death of the deceased mother, detailing the funds withdrawn from the account that were not in favor of the father.
III. I require the defendant to return to the account all sums of money that he withdrew from the account, including by credit cards in the account, not in favor of the father, if any; the refund will be made within 30 days from the date of submission of the following report."30.
- I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff and the defendant 2 expenses in the sum of ILS 50,000, in equal parts between them. The amount will be paid within 30 days, otherwise it will bear interest and linkage differentials as required by law from the date of the charge until the date of actual payment.
- The judgment is permitted to be published by omitting names and identifying details.
- The Secretariat will send the judgment to the parties.
Given today, September 03,2026, in the absence of the parties.