On the other hand, according to Hani, the devices were purchased from her and Naveh's joint funds, and therefore they were also owned by her. The devices were abandoned in a drawer at home, without a "SIM", and were actually used by their daughters for a game.
- After examining the arguments of the parties and reviewing the exhibits, I prefer Naveh's version in this dispute, and will elaborate.
Naveh explained that at that time he had about 12 devices that carried one number, that is: the same subscriber number. He said: "This is the line that I used, meaning the number one, for a number of reasons there was a time when I had an app that recorded calls and since I am not technologically advanced I didn't know the thing about uploading content to the cloud to free up memory, I would just switch to a new device when the devices were full, I would store the old device in case I needed it. Since I use Android, every time there was a new model of Samsung I would feel the need to purchase it in order to move forward. I was also afraid of viruses... and that would make me change a device" (Par. p. 76, paras. 20-27). According to him: "The devices were purchased by the ministry, the lines were registered in the name of the firm, mine and the partner's, monthly payments were from a standing order of the ministry" (para. p. 77, paras. 18-19).
- The old devices were preserved by Adv. Nave"In case I needed their contents. The devices contained correspondence, calls, messages, messages that were important to me in case I needed them. I didn't have a cloud, so I kept the devices and they remained password protected" (par. p. 77, paras. 31-33). Some of the devices were kept in the office and four devices remained in his and Hani's shared home. At first, the devices were kept in the home safe, but "because the safe was not large, there was a gun and jewelry, some of the time they were taken out of the safe and were in the closet" (par. p. 77, paras. 35-36, p. 78, s. 1). In any case, Naveh explained, the devices "were not ... abandoned or given for the use of Hani or my small children. If I wanted to give them away, I would give them their password and I would copy or empty their contents. These were devices that I had in my private home, their content was personal, private, professional. It also doesn't matter if they were in a safe or in a closet, there is content that is password protected and cannot be hacked" (p. 78, paras. 1-5). And yes: "It's nonsense. The fact is that I didn't give her the passwords for the phones. If I had given her the phone, why would she have gone to the burglar?"
- I was positively impressed by Naveh's testimony on this issue. His testimony was consistent and orderly, and was not contradicted in cross-examination.
His testimony was supported by external evidence: two invoices for the purchase of mobile devices from the years 2013-2014 (P/50). These invoices were issued for the law firm "Atias Elisha Adv. / or Neve Ephraim Adv.