Conversation No. 204 of January 25, 2018 - A conversation between the defendants, regarding a woman named Anna who was interested in renting a unit and asked the defendant for a discount. The defendant told the defendant that they were paid NIS 600 for week 3, and that " we have demand all the time someone comes." In his testimony, the defendant claimed that there was no high demand, and later claimed that there was demand, but "that doesn't mean we rent" (p. 577). Later in the conversation, the defendant told the defendant that the Armenians had to come. In his testimony, he clarified that he was referring to the Armenian novel and claimed that the Armenians apparently did not come, and that there are many people who call and are interested but in the end do not show up (p. 577). Later in the conversation, the defendants spoke about the fact that the regular price was $80 to $100 per night. The defendant confirmed that this was the regular price, and added that they did not always rent at this price (p. 578).
Conversation No. 1203 of February 11, 2018 - A conversation between the defendants, inter alia, regarding the amount of money found in the house. The defendant asks the defendant what amount he should deposit in the bank. The defendant says in the conversation that he has already deposited NIS 20,000 in the account and the two talk about the fact that there is an additional NIS 3,000 in the house that must be deposited. The defendant confirmed in his testimony that he deposited in the bank account cash that he had in the house (p. 578). To the question of what cash was used, the defendant replied that he did not remember, and that for every deposit over NIS 500 there was a report that was submitted in framework N/6 (p. 579).
Conversation No. 1259 of February 11, 2018 - Conversation between the two and "Ola", regarding a tenant who is supposed to enter one of the units, who should be charged ₪100 and NIS 150. The defendant stated in his testimony that Ula was a relative who helped take care of the defendants' son, but later confirmed that she also cleaned for them, and that was also in the motel. When asked whether there was a separate addition of NIS 150 to cleaning fees, he replied that there were those who did not always want to be cleaned for them. The defendant did not know who the tenant was, and to the question of whether it was possible that it was a short-term rental and that he did not have a receipt or invoice, he replied that at that time, according to the accountant's advice, they did not work with receipts and invoices, but with contracts, and all contracts were transferred to the accountant (p. 580).