Q: Okay.
A: that they were strangers,
Q: And that's just how you wouldn't make contracts, right?
A: Why do we do just like that? What do you mean just like that?
Q: No, let's say, she asked for a contract because she needed it as if it were for the insurance, right?
A: No, we made a contract,
Q: Second, wait, she needed it for insurance,
A: There's a contract because she also asked for it,
Q: Yes, obviously, but I say,
A: We didn't do it without a contract,
Q: What?
A: Only the children would live without a contract.
Q: Did everyone have contracts? Did everyone who paid money have a contract?
A: Yes.
Q: Yes?
A: Yes, absolutely."
- The defendant was not familiar with the rental document prepared by the defendant. She is also not familiar with the registration made by the defendant in real time. The defendant was involved in this and she was busy with other things (p. 587). There was no record of the children who arrived through the association. The defendant knew most of the children (pp. 588-589).
- Reporting to the Income Tax in 2017 and 2018 – the defendant reported and the defendant signed the joint reports. As to her awareness of the content of the reports (p. 589):
"Q: But you signed the reports, right? And you approve them, right? That you are aware of what you signed correctly? True or false?
A: I don't know if I'm aware,
Q: Isn't it true that you just signed?
A: There is a situation.
Q: Really?
A: Yes. Because I trusted Arkadi and an accountant because they sat on it."
The defendant claimed that she paid the accountant and trusted him. The defendants reported all the income and expenses, anything that the bookkeeper informed her was missing, she used to send it to her immediately (p. 590). As for the 2018 income tax report, the defendant signed it but did not check anything because he was busy and preoccupied with her son's treatments (p. 590). To the question of what income or what agreements she transferred to the accountant for the year 2018, she replied that she did not know, since only the defendant was involved in it (p. 603).
- K. 2016 Report Building (Appendix E to Exhibit N/6) – according to which income from renting a property for this year is NIS 0, compared to the previous year (2015) 4,340 NIS ("Notes to the Financial Statements" – p. 7), the defendant does not remember whether, in real time, when she signed the reports, she was aware of this figure (p. 592). After the defendant confirmed that in 2015 the income amounted to NIS 4,340, the plaintiff referred her to the fact that in the rent list prepared by the defendant for the years 2014-2018 (N/6, p. 236), the rents in 2015 amounted to NIS 94,023, including Pardes Hanna, (NIS 66,000, not including Pardes Hanna). The defendant's response was that the accountant should be asked why he did not include the said sum in the report (p. 600).
- Later in the cross-examination, the defendant was interrogated about her conversations:
Call No. 5030 of September 17, 2018 - A conversation between the defendants, in which the defendant says that he "wants to screw up a new illness," and the defendant replies, "But how... you have to make money, after all, big projects will open for you," and the defendant scolds her: "... Why are you talking on the phone about all kinds of nonsense?" . In response to these words, the defendant claimed in her testimony that she was never a civil servant, but rather an independent person. When asked whether in 2018, when the defendants had been married for eight years, she did not know how her husband's salary "worked", she replied that she did not know, that she was not interested in knowing, and that she did not need to know anything (p. 604). The defendant denied that the defendant had inflated projects in the IPS (p. 605).