As for the existence of contracts, only seven contracts relating to the motel were submitted to the exhibits file, from the years 2015 and 2016 (P/6, Appendix E). The defendants did not submit any contract from the years 2017-2018, even though in those years, according to the defendant's testimony, the report to the accountant was based solely on contracts. In the case of Vika, which rented a long-term unit since July 2017 and no contract was submitted in its case, the defendant raised various claims: a contract was made with her; on the advice of the accountant in 2018, no contract was made with her; for the purpose of reporting for 2018, the accountant received the contract in her case. However, the testimony of CPA Dotan indicates that he did not even know that the motel was rented in the years 2017-2018. Another example of the absence of a contract relates to the end of 2014, when the defendant was asked about invoice No. 0051 (P/6, Appendix E) and noted that apparently no contract was made in that case. In these circumstances, the argument that a contract was drawn up in the matter of each occupant of the motel should be rejected.
Regarding the existence of invoices – in the framework of N/6 (Appendix E), only seven invoices were submitted, from the years 2014 and 2015. This is while in the list of rents (which should not be considered an exhaustive list) there are 19 rents for these years. As already noted, the invoices do not contain all the details that must be filled in. In some of them, only an amount appears, without a name, date or other details. Only four invoices were filled out as required. The defendants themselves claimed that no invoices were issued in the years 2017-2018, when they claimed that in those years the reporting was based solely on contracts drawn up with each and every tenant. However, their argument regarding the drafting of the contracts was rejected. As for the claim that CPA Dotan instructed the defendants that contracts alone could be sufficed, this claim was not proven, and CPA Dotan himself testified that he did not even know that the defendants continued to rent out the motel in 2017 and 2018.
- It can be seen that there are contradictions between the list of unpaid tenants, the list of rents and the testimonies of the defendants. This is the case, for example, regarding the period of residence of the defendant's daughter in the motel. According to the list of unpaid tenants, the daughter lived in the motel without payment for a period of several years, between August 5, 2015 and May 16, 2018, when, according to the defendant's testimony, the daughter lived in the basement unit. However, according to the list of rents and a lease contract that was attached, between February 20, 2015 and February 20, 2016, even before the daughter entered the unit and coincided with part of her period of residence in the unit, Lior Benin lived in the basement unit. In addition, according to the list of free tenants and according to the testimony of Amsalo Ababa, the latter lived in the basement unit between June 2015 and February 2016. These dates coincide, both for Lior Benin and for the defendant's daughter.
An additional contradiction arose in light of what was stated in the wiretapping that a certain tenant rented the basement unit for a month and a half at the beginning of 2018. In this regard, the defendant initially claimed that his daughter had lived in the basement between the years 2015-2017, before the tenant moved in, but later, when it was explained to him that in the list of free tenants he stated that his daughter had left the motel in May 2018, he claimed that he may have asked his daughter to move to another unit while the tenant was living in the same apartment. Although the claim regarding the transfer between units is not impossible, in view of its raising after a failed attempt to explain the matter in a different way, and when there is another contradiction between the alleged period of residence of the daughter and the period of residence of Lior Benin, I am of the opinion that this indicates that the partial records of the defendant should not be placed in the framework of the list of tenants free of charge.