The list of interrogees in the Bionet Credit irregularities case continues to grow. Another investigator in the case is Yoav Zabar, the company’s deputy CEO and compliance officer. The state for granting the licenses to the changers before their supervision passed to the Capital Market Authority in the days of the previous commissioner, Dorit Salinger.
● The disappearance of the millions from Mounted Credit: Moshe Kahlon’s version is revealed, EY executives arrive at the interrogation rooms
He joins the company’s chairman who resigned last month, former finance minister Moshe Kahlon; the company’s three controlling shareholders, Shlomo Isaac, Shai Panso and Tzachi Azar; At the accounting firm EY, which reviewed the Yonet Credit reports, which have already been investigated in the case.
Sabra’s entourage says that he was the one who led the opening of the investigation and as part of his job he was responsible for reporting to the Money Laundering Authority and not to the Securities Authority, so his investigation was known separately from the other detainees, and the amount demanded by the Securities Authority as a guarantee NIS 100,000, compared to Isaac, for example, who had to deposit more than NIS 1 million. In addition to depositing the guarantee, he was banned from leaving the country for 180 days.
The suspicions directed against Sabra are the same as the suspicions directed against the three controlling shareholders in the company. These are suspicions of receiving anything fraudulently under aggravated circumstances; False registration in corporation documents; Fraud and breach of trust in the corporation; In theft by a licensee; Counterfeiting and money laundering. Unlike the three controlling shareholders, he is not suspected of using inside information.
Attorneys Kobi and Uri Goldman and attorneys Maor Berdichevsky, representing Mr. Yoav Sabar, stated: We are confident that at the end of the investigation it will become clear that there was no flaw in his actions. There is no dispute that our client did not take anything into his own pocket and by virtue of his position he took care of public society and the public. “
They knew about the illegal acts but did not report
Yesterday it was reported in Globes that during Kahlon’s interrogation, PA investigators slapped him because he knew about the illegal acts in the company but did not report it legally. Kahlon completely denied the investigators’ words, claiming that as soon as he learned of the suspicion of irregularities regarding missing checks, he ordered EY Israel to investigate this and appointed an external investigator for the affair. Later, as soon as he became aware of the suspicions of criminal acts in the company, he announced his resignation.
Securities Authority investigators made it clear to Kahlon that he was not suspected of the theft that occurred at all prior to his tenure, but of securities offenses for failing to lawfully report the irregularities received at the company, despite his duty as chairman of the board.
According to Kahlon, the sources below him told him that this was not an extreme and material event for the company, and therefore did not act to report it as long as the extent of the severity of the problem was not revealed to him. According to him, although he was warned about such and such managerial and functional problems, he never received a warning regarding material information that requires reporting to the public.
Among the other interrogees is, as noted, a senior official at the accounting firm Ernst & Young Israel (EY) investigated in a warning at the Securities Authority offices. In addition, Globes has learned that Yonet, on the advice of her lawyers from the Barnea Jaffa Landa law firm, has completely waived her lawyer-client confidentiality with any legal entity she consulted.
It should be noted that the company has handed over many documents to the Securities Authority, when according to the assessments these materials incriminate, according to the assessments, the controlling shareholders and officers of Bayonet, and in any case also the company itself. The company’s decision was made by the independent directors, in light of the fact that the other directors are in a conflict of interest due to their alleged involvement in events that are at the heart of the suspicions.
The audit is designed to ensure that the disclosure to investors is reliable
After the Securities Authority announced yesterday that it is extending the disclosure obligation of companies operating in the non-bank credit line, the Authority anticipated the extensive reviews of non-bank credit companies planned for the rest of the year.
The Audit and Evaluation Department of the Securities Authority opened an audit, and the Authority noted that the audit was intended to ensure that the disclosure given to investors in companies operating in this industry is reliable and proper. The audit will examine a number of issues, including: the adequacy of the measurement and disclosure of companies operating in the industry in relation to loans and credit balances to customers in the financial statements and the adequacy of provisions for credit losses.
“In view of the recent events in non-bank credit companies, the changes in market conditions and the rise in interest rates, which is a factor that significantly affects the activities of these companies and the ability of their customers to repay, it was decided to carry out the audit now,” the Securities Authority explained.
This step joins, as stated, the extension of the disclosure obligation published by the Authority yesterday. The published document clarifies to companies in a focused manner the required disclosure, on the following issues: main risks, how they are managed, the prospect of their realization and their impact on the corporations in this industry. Under the new directive, companies will be required to publish the disclosure in their reports in order to reflect all relevant information to the investing public and they are required to do so already in the framework of the forthcoming quarterly report.
“Credit risk is an inherent risk for the non-bank credit industry and is managed on an ongoing basis. Along with this risk, corporations that operate in this field are inherently exposed to additional risks, including operational risks (such as theft, embezzlement, fraud and irregularities), money laundering risks, risk “Regulation and changes in legislation and the risk of non-compliance with regulatory provisions on the subject,” the Securities Authority wrote.
The Authority requires companies to address and analyze the risk of regulation and legislative changes, money laundering risks and compliance risk (ie, the risk of the corporation not complying with legal provisions and regulatory provisions including risk management and money laundering aspects) and operational risks such as theft, embezzlement, fraud and irregularities. In this context, it was written that the corporation must also address the risk centers identified in its activities.