The court ordered the bank to open an account for the "threatening customer". Israel today

In collaboration with Zapp Legal

The district court in Haifa recently ordered the Mercantile Discount Bank to open an account for a resident of the north who allegedly terrorized officials of one of its branches in the north.

The bank refused to open an account for the customer for this reason and its officials were afraid to testify as part of the procedure, with the exception of the security officer.

"In the end, the court ruled that the bank had no reasonable grounds to refuse the client's request to open an account," says

who represented the man. "The bank did not present any support for its position, and in fact, as we showed in court, there was no reason for its concern ".

"The customer threatened that the branch would suffer"

In the lawsuit that the client submitted to the court, he claimed that for years he managed a business account at the Bank Hapoalim branch at his place of residence, but following a dispute between him and the bank, the latter decided to close the account.

Following this, the man demanded from the court to prevent the closing of his account, but the latter rejected his claim.

Against this background, the customer contacted the Mercantile Discount branch at his place of residence to open an account there.

However, after the bank refused his demand, he went to court again.

According to the bank, his refusal to open an account for the customer was due to his "serious and threatening behavior", which caused real fear for the lives of the bank's employees.

Among other things, the bank claimed that the customer threatened the bank employees that if they did not open an account for him, "the branch will suffer".

The bank claimed that the man stated to the branch manager that his business was on the verge of closing and that he had already been arrested several times and released, but "we are not afraid of arrest and intend to carry out his threats".

Against this background, the bank claimed, the bank's security representatives arrived at the branch, a police car was ordered and a complaint about threats was filed.

The bank added that following the events, the bank's security officer decided to station a police officer at the branch for extended periods of time.

Threats to kill and shoot a firearm

The bank referred the court to a previous procedure conducted in the Acre Magistrate's Court regarding Bank Hapoalim's decision to close the customer's account.

According to the bank, the court's decision shows that two days after death threats were directed at the employees of the Bank Hapoalim branch there, a firearm was fired at that branch, an event that seemingly strengthened the bank's claims and its fear of the customer.

"The employees feel tremendous fear and are not ready to go to court and confront the client," the bank argued in court.

Against the background of this concern, the bank submitted an affidavit only on behalf of the security officer, which only included hearsay evidence.

That is, the security officer did not testify from personal knowledge of the events but only about what he heard.

"There is no evidence that fear is justified"

In the ruling, the court sharply criticized the bank's conduct in the process and stated that since the security officer's testimony was only hearsay, the bank's version remained "without basic evidentiary support".

Judge Eilat Dagan emphasized that the Supreme Court "did not collect written messages that could be relied upon and could not verify anything in the cross-examination regarding the alleged events."

The judge added that the bank officials' fear of testifying in court relates to events that occurred two years ago, and since the client has not contacted the bank since 2019, there is no evidence that there is still any justification for the fear - "It is not at all clear if the threatened are still working at the bank and if there is a basis for concern," she noted.

Against this background, the judge determined that it was not proven that the bank's refusal to open an account for the customer was a "reasonable refusal", according to the banking law.

"The court's decision proves that there was no reasonable reasoning that justified the refusal to open an account for the client," concludes

who represented him.

The banks sometimes use their power in an unreasonable way, and must have their finger on the pulse in this matter."

Experiencing difficulties with the bank?

Need professional legal assistance in another area?

Consult attorney Malek Morkus, a graduate of the Hebrew University.

In collaboration with Zapp Legal