ISRAEL Law and Practice Contributed by: Yitzhak Yaari, Chen, Yaari, Vaki & Co.
plaintiff for the damage caused to them by the defend - ant’s procedural failure by awarding costs. Moreover, when a statement of defence is filed, and the court finds that the statement of defence does not show any defence, it has the power at a pre-trial hear - ing to grant judgment accepting the claim. Exercising this power is exceptional and will be done only when there is no doubt that the defence has no chance of success. 2.7 Rules for Pleading Fraud As stated in 1.1 General Characteristics of Fraud Claims , lawsuits in which the plaintiff claims fraud, misrepresentation, malice or undue influence require a particularly high standard of proof, which exceeds the standard of proof required in an ordinary civil claim. Such claims – as well as pleadings of conspiracy, deliberate deception, breach of fiduciary duties, illegal withdrawal of money, etc – also require greater fac - tual details in the plaintiff’s written pleadings, includ - ing the full details and their dates. The logic of this is that such claims tarnish a person’s reputation, and in some cases, the commission of the alleged act also constitutes a criminal offence. Such claims should not be raised in vague terms, and the party against whom the claim is made should be given the information that will enable them to understand the case against them. Without details, the court may refuse to hear the claim, which means that the claim may be dismissed. 2.8 Claims Against “Unknown” Fraudsters The question of whether it is possible to file a law - suit in Israel against an anonymous person whose identity is unknown was addressed by the Supreme Court in one case, where anonymous messages defaming someone were published on the internet, and they sought to file a lawsuit under the Prohibition of Defamation Law (LCA 4447/07 Rami Mor v Barak ITC [1995] International Telecommunication Services Ltd. (25 March 2010)). It was held (by a majority) that a lawsuit cannot be filed in Israel against a person whose identity is unknown. Israeli law does not allow this, and even explicitly provides that the plaintiff must state the defendant’s name, as well as their identity number, address and telephone number, if they can be ascertained.
Following this ruling, the Copyright Law was amended by adding a specific arrangement that allows the Dis - trict Court to order the disclosure of the identity of a person who performs actions that constitute copyright infringement through an electronic communications network. This procedure allows the applicant, who claims a copyright infringement, to petition the court to order a third party (such as an internet service pro - vider) to provide information that will help to identify the infringer, subject to certain conditions such as a real concern of infringement and the likelihood that the claim will be decided in the applicant’s favour. 2.9 Compelling Witnesses to Give Evidence A witness who is lawfully summoned and fails to appear to testify may be subject to various sanctions. The first of these is a subpoena, which orders the wit - ness to be brought before the court. The order is car - ried out by the police, who may arrest the witness and bring them before the court. Moreover, the court may fine a recalcitrant witness and even make an imprison - ment order against them. If the court has a reason to believe that a person summoned to testify or produce a document will not appear or produce the document, it may order the witness to provide surety or make any order it thinks fit to ensure that they appear, includ - ing the deposit of a passport and an order prohibiting them from leaving the country. Failure to appear to testify is also a criminal offence. 3. Corporate Entities, Ultimate Beneficial Owners and Shareholders 3.1 Imposing Liability for Fraud on a Corporate Entity Section 47 of the Israeli Companies Law provides that “The actions and intentions of an organ are the actions and intentions of the company.” This adopts the doc - trine known as the “doctrine of organs,” according to which human qualities of thought and action may be attributed to a corporation, even though it is not a human being. Therefore, according to the case law of the Supreme Court, when an officer of a company commits an act of fraud, the company can also be found liable (in addition to finding the officer liable), provided that the officer’s act was done in the course of performing their duties and was done for the benefit
202 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook