A: It's Arkadi,
Q: You have nothing to do with your claim?
A: I'm not good at it, no.
Q: Leave the favor not good, you say that you are not even aware that I will be ordained,
A: I know, but Arkadi, Arkadi, he has a very big plus, everything is documented in his house, he has binders that he seems to document and he's there in plastic wrap, I'm not, I'm not that type. I don't know how to do that."
(p. 581)
When asked about the fact that she denied the sums in the indictment but in fact, according to her, she was not really aware of the calculation, she replied that once in a while she had to go to the accountant herself because she had to understand things:
"Now once in a while I have to go to the accountant is his most hated day, because I'm really not good at this thing but I have to understand, now it's like I'm not good and I have to understand and then in fact he's sitting with me on material so I ask questions 20 times" (p. 582).
To the claim that she talks to the defendant about the financial matters in the telephone conversations and therefore knows about the money that comes in, she replied that she does not write down the matter and therefore forgets about the whole matter after a few minutes (p. 584). To the question of whether it is possible that the defendant will collect NIS 10,000 from the tenants and not tell her about it, she replied in the negative (p. 584). According to her, the defendant writes everything down, and he has a binder on the matter that he submitted to the court (such a binder was not submitted to the court – M. B.) (p. 585).
- The long-term unit – Vika rented the unit, in front of it was a man who forged checks, before him Marina the defendant's daughter – who was no longer there in 2018, and before her was Amsalo Abba (pp. 585-586). Beyond that, there were no long-term rentals (p. 586). Hofit Ohana did not rent a long-term unit from them, but only for a period of about one month (p. 586).
- As to the existence of contracts with the tenants, Hofit requested a contract for insurance purposes and therefore there was a contract between the parties. However, the defendant later claimed that a contract was drawn up with everyone who lived in the motel for a fee, and only the children who came to the motel did not have a contract (pp. 586-587):
"A: ... I don't remember if it was Hofit was someone... She called me in the evening and said she had a friend who had something in their house explode, there was a flood in the house and they just really asked for it. And there's a contract for that, I'll tell you why because they asked for an insurance contract,