According to halakha, the burden of proof in the matter of a claim of forgery of a document rests with the "one who takes out the author". In other words, the person who wishes to rely on the authenticity of the document as evidence to prove his claim. See, for example, a recent judgment in the case of the Civil Appeals Authority 6838-04-26 Shiri Investments S.H. Ltd. v. Sultan (August 11,2026).
- In our case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the authenticity of the signatures and the content of the documents.
The defendant's failure to present the original documents, if there are any such documents (the existence of which was denied) may give the defendant a negative evidentiary conclusion, does not obviate the plaintiff's duty to bring positive evidence to prove the authenticity of the document.
Since the plaintiff refrained from presenting testimony regarding the signature of the document, whether eyewitness testimony or an expert opinion, she did not meet the initial burden of proof to prove the authenticity of the documents, and therefore it is not possible to base findings on them in this case.
The plaintiff's attempt to use the public servant's certificate, which included outputs from the Sirena system and was submitted by the current security officer, Mr. Galeb Gadban, in order to support her claims regarding updated rates reported to the Israel Police by the defendant, does not cure this evidentiary omission.
Mr. Gadban assumed his position as the defendant's security officer only in 2019, and therefore he has no personal knowledge of the period relevant to the claim from 2014 to 2017.
Moreover, the Sirena system only became operational in September 2015, and therefore does not record the alleged reports at the beginning of the dispute period.
Therefore, in the absence of any supporting external evidence to fill in the evidentiary gap, the plaintiff's claims on this issue remain mere claims, for which no sufficient evidentiary basis has been laid.
- Moreover, even if the plaintiff had succeeded in proving these claims, this would not have established a cause of action for her by virtue of the Enrichment and Trial Law, 5739-1979.
The contractual relationship between the parties is examined according to the content of the agreement and according to the rules of contract interpretation.