On 4 October 2026, a process server acting for Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing reported that he had met the car owner, handed him a summons to an auction, and that the owner signed the proof of service. The owner says he met no one and that the signature is not his. That same morning he received a phone call in which he was asked for his address.
Three weeks later, the sale of the car was approved.
In brief
- 1. 4.10.2026: a proof of service of a "summons to auction" carries a signature in the "recipient's signature" field. According to the owner and his affidavit, the signature was forged.
- 2. 11:35 that day: a 46-second incoming call. The caller introduced himself as "Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing, financing", asked for the address and said "so I am sending you the letter to this address".
- 3. The third time: on two earlier occasions, enforcement registrars found that on the date of the "personal service" the owner was outside Israel.
- 4. 28.10.2026: the sale was approved. The ID number written next to the buyer's name belongs, according to the Population Registry, to his daughter.
Thrown out the door, back in through the window
In Sewer Service ISRAEL we described six services recorded in the files of Mizrahi Tefahot Bank and its subsidiary against one customer. Two of them were cancelled by the enforcement registrars themselves.
22 December 2024
In the promissory note file, the warning was reported as served on the owner in person. On 21 October 2025, Registrar Moti Buhbut found, based on the border crossing record, that on that date the owner was "outside the borders of the State of Israel". He ordered "the cancellation of all proceedings taken in the file, and the cancellation of the attorney fees added to the debt".
21 April 2025
In the car pledge file, personal service was reported again. A decision of 13 January 2026 found that "the debtor was outside the borders of Israel on 21.04.2025", and the date recorded in the file was cancelled. On 25 August 2026 the creditor cancelled an attorney fee component of NIS 21,456.50.
What the creditor wrote about the same server
In its response of 19 October 2025, the creditor itself wrote that "it is not impossible that he had another person sign, who identified himself to him as the debtor". The creditor already knew there was a problem with this server's proofs of service.
4 October 2026: the proof of service
In the pledge file, the receiver, attorney Victor Fisher of the Chen Fisher Gabbay firm, asked for approval of the car's sale. Two proofs of service by the process server Naamna Salameh were attached: a summons to auction dated 4.10.2026 and a redemption letter dated 18.10.2026.
The locate report reads: "During his visit he met the addressee. The above received the documents and signed the proof of service." The time of service appears neither in the report nor in the server's affidavit.
The "recipient's signature" field carries a signature attributed to the owner. According to him and his affidavit, the signature is not his. His phone number was handwritten at the bottom of the form.
The call
That day at 11:35 the owner received a 46-second incoming call. The number, 052-3720813, is saved in his phone as "Chen Fisher Gabbay courier". The call was recorded; the recording starts mid-call:
"...your address is [address omitted]?" "Where are you calling from?" "Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing, financing." ... "Great, that's it, that's it, so I am sending you the letter to this address, thank you very much."
Someone who stands in front of a person and hands him a document does not need to ask him for his address by phone, and does not tell him "I am sending you the letter". That is the gap the owner points to: a phone call, followed by a signature on a form that attests to a meeting.
18 October 2026
According to the second locate report, the server "met the addressee" and "the above received the documents and refused to sign". The server's affidavit only marks "served on the debtor". The proof of service shows an entry in the "recipient's signature" field. Three documents about one service, and three versions.
The sale approval and the daughter's ID number
On 28 October 2026, Registrar Shirley Gideon approved the sale of the car for NIS 73,500. The decision states that "a redemption letter was served on the debtor on 18.10.2026", and the sale was approved "in the absence of an objection by the debtor". The owner says he never received the redemption letter and did not know about the application.
The auction was won by a bidder named Mordechai. He signed the sale agreement, and the receiver recorded his ID number in it. But in the application to the registrar, and in the decision based on it, a different ID number appeared next to his name. According to the Population Registry, it is his daughter's. She did not take part in the auction or sign the agreement, and her name was not written in the application.
Why it matters
- He is a car dealer. According to the Tax Authority certificate, his VAT activity is "trade and brokerage of used motor vehicles".
- A dealer must report. Under Tax Authority interpretation directive 1/2020, a dealer who buys and sells used cars must keep a trade ledger and issue an invoice for each vehicle separately.
- Replacing the winner is prohibited. The receiver's own office published with the auction: "No change of the winner's name after winning the tender!"
Had the car been registered to the dealer, its next sale would be a reported transaction. Registered to the daughter, the next sale can look like a private one. We have no other explanation for this choice, and no evidence of a motive. It is a question the receiver needs to answer.
What was filed
On 28 October 2026 the owner filed an urgent application to stay and cancel the decision. He asked to stop the formal order and the transfer of ownership, to deposit any amount received from the buyer in the file, to cancel the sale approval, and to rule that ownership may not pass to anyone who did not take part in the auction.
At the time of publication the application has not been decided, and no response from the receiver or the creditor has reached us. The claims in this article are the owner's version and will be examined in the proceedings.
Questions for the receiver and the creditor
- 1. When exactly, and at what time, did the server meet the owner on 4.10.2026?
- 2. Who called the owner that day from 052-3720813, and why was he asked for his address?
- 3. Why was an ID number that is not the auction winner's written in the application to the registrar?
- 4. Why were this server's proofs of service filed again, after the creditor itself wrote that he may have had another person sign?
This article is based on the receiver's sale application, the proofs of service and locate reports, the registrars' decisions of 21.10.2025, 13.1.2026 and 28.10.2026, the call log and recording of 4.10.2026, and the urgent application of 28.10.2026. It was written, edited and translated with the help of artificial intelligence; the Hebrew version is the controlling text. Any response from the receiver or the creditor will be published.
Read also
- Sewer Service ISRAEL: the American method that reached the Execution Office
- Exit ban: how did Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing seek to stop a customer leaving Israel while he was already abroad?
- Mizrahi Tefahot debt collection: how did a request to close a debt become a bench warrant?
- Demand letter on behalf of Bank Mizrahi Tefahot: delete the site "from every storage medium" and do not publish "a website similar to it, in the future"