Conversation No. 52 of 22.1.2018 at 18:20 - A conversation between the defendants with a man named Haim Dekel who wanted to rent a unit in a motel and was on his way to see the unit. The defendant did not remember in his testimony whether it was a long-term or short-term unit, and he did not know who it was. The defendant tried to interfere with his testimony during his statement (p. 568).
Conversation No. 53 of 22.1.2018 at 18:23 - Conversation between the defendants regarding the same person (Haim Dekel) who is on his way to see the unit in the motel. It was mentioned that he was interested in renting a unit for ten nights, with the defendant referring to the price of $80-100 per night and the defendant mentioning a price of $120-160 per night (p. 569).
Conversation No. 57 of January 22, 2018 - A conversation between the defendant and Haim Dekel's wife (see conversations nos. 52-53). The defendant confirmed that according to the content of the conversation, the two rented a unit in a motel.
To the argument that there was no document (contract/invoice/receipt) in the name of Haim Dekel in Exhibit N/6, the defendant replied that there may not have been an invoice in his name, but in the name of a relative, and that it may have been a contract. The defendant was unable to locate any document on the matter in the framework of Exhibit N/6. According to him, it is possible that the tenants moved between different units (p. 571).
Conversation No. 184 of January 24, 2018 - A conversation between the defendant and a woman named Lital, who had rented an apartment from the defendant in the past with her husband Lior. In the conversation, Lital expressed interest in the large unit for the long term, and the defendant replied that this unit was not possible in the long term, and as he put it: "There are also tenants there all the time. My wife's parents also come three times in ... a year." In his testimony, the defendant reiterated that this unit was not rented out for the long term, and to the prosecutor's question he added that the unit was not rented at all, not even for a short time, due to the objections of the defendant's parents. According to him, when he spoke of "tenants" in a conversation with Little, he meant that his son came for weekends and used to stay in this unit (p. 572).