Case details: Civil Case 8221-10-18, The First International Bank of Israel Ltd. v. Shaked et al. | Jerusalem Magistrates’ Court | Hon. Judge Mika Banki | October 14, 2020.
The Jerusalem Magistrates’ Court granted a claim brought by the First International Bank of Israel against a guarantor who alleged that his signatures on the guarantee documents had been forged. After examining the testimony, documents and expert opinions submitted by the parties, the Court held that the bank had proved that the defendant himself signed the guarantees and that the signatures were genuine.
Background to the Dispute
Defendants 1–2 maintained an account with the bank, while the third defendant, Amichai Daniel Shapira, was employed by a company owned and managed by the first defendant.
Shapira claimed that he had agreed, at his employer’s request, to guarantee a loan of NIS 50,000. It was undisputed that on December 6, 2017, the two arrived at the bank branch, where Shapira was presented with guarantee documents for NIS 200,000.
From that point, the parties’ accounts diverged. According to the bank, Shapira signed the guarantee documents without objection. Shapira maintained that, once he saw the NIS 200,000 amount, he refused to sign and left the branch, and that another person subsequently signed in his name.
The loan was not repaid and the bank filed suit. Judgment had already been entered against the first two defendants in the absence of a defense, leaving the Court to determine the third defendant’s liability as guarantor.
What Was in Dispute?
The central issue was whether Shapira had personally signed the guarantee documents or whether the signatures had been forged.
A bank employee from the Talpiot branch who handled the signing process testified on behalf of the bank. She stated that Shapira had signed the documents in her presence.
Shapira denied the signatures and claimed that he had left the branch after discovering that the loan amount was higher than he had previously understood.
Both sides also submitted expert opinions concerning handwriting and signature comparison.
What Did the Court Decide?
The Bank Representative’s Testimony Was Found Consistent and Credible
The Court accepted the testimony of the bank representative.
She described Shapira’s arrival at the branch, completion of the forms and signing in her presence. She testified that Shapira had arrived without his identity card and, while sitting across from her, emailed her a photograph of it.
The timing of the documents supported her account: the guarantee forms reflected an entry time of 11:45 a.m., while the email containing the photograph of Shapira’s identity card was sent at 11:51 a.m. that same day.
She also testified that she had asked Shapira why he was willing to guarantee NIS 200,000 for his employer, and that he replied that they were friends.
The Court found her testimony consistent and credible.
The Defendant’s Account Was Found Inconsistent
By contrast, the Court identified difficulties and inconsistencies in Shapira’s version of events.
In the affidavit filed in support of his application for leave to defend, he claimed that he had noticed the loan amount before identifying himself to the bank representative, stated that he would not sign and left the branch.
In his later witness statement, however, he added that before leaving he had been asked to provide personal information and had completed part of the documentation.
During cross-examination, he had difficulty explaining precisely when he noticed the NIS 200,000 amount, which details he had completed and at what stage. He also acknowledged that some of the handwriting on the financial-status form resembled his own.
The Court held that these inconsistencies undermined his credibility and strengthened the bank’s version.
The Bank Bore the Burden of Proving the Signature
The Court noted that where a person denies having signed a guarantee, the burden of proving the authenticity of the signature rests on the party seeking to rely on it.
In this case, the Court held that the bank had met that burden.
Its conclusion was based primarily on the direct testimony of the bank representative who witnessed the signing, which the Court found credible, contrasted with the defendant’s inconsistent account.
The Court found that Shapira had sat before the bank employee, completed the forms, signed them and concluded the meeting without the objection and departure he later described.
The Signature Experts Did Not Determine the Outcome
The defendant submitted a handwriting expert opinion concluding that there was a very high probability that the signatures were not his. However, the opinion was based on a limited number of comparison samples and on copies rather than original documents.
The Court did not adopt that conclusion.
The bank’s expert, who examined original documents, concluded that the available material was insufficient to determine professionally whether the signatures had been written by the defendant or by another person. The Court regarded this position as more reasonable.
Nevertheless, the Court made clear that the witness testimony ultimately resolved the dispute and that the expert opinions themselves were not decisive.
Significance of the Judgment
The judgment illustrates that when a defendant denies a signature on a guarantee, the party seeking to rely on the document must prove that the signature is authentic.
In this case, the direct testimony of the bank employee, together with the surrounding circumstances and contemporaneous documentation, was sufficient to establish the signature. At the same time, inconsistencies in the defendant’s account weakened his allegation that he had left the branch without signing.
The judgment also demonstrates that handwriting analysis does not stand in isolation. The Court considered the quality of the material examined by the experts, the original documents and the other evidence presented at trial.
In a dispute over the authenticity of a signature, the outcome may depend on the overall evidentiary picture and the credibility of the witnesses — not solely on handwriting analysis.
Outcome
The Court granted the bank’s claim.
The third defendant was ordered to pay the bank NIS 200,215.61, as of August 21, 2018, together with interest and linkage in accordance with the loan terms until payment in full.
He was also ordered to reimburse the bank for the court fee and the cost of its expert opinion, and to pay NIS 30,000 in attorneys’ fees.
Source
Civil Case 8221-10-18, The First International Bank of Israel Ltd. v. Shaked et al., Jerusalem Magistrates’ Court, before Hon. Judge Mika Banki, judgment dated October 14, 2020.
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for individualized legal advice based on the circumstances of a particular matter.
