Court Rules Funds Were Salary, Not Loan, in Dispute Between Company and Ex-Accountant
Translated & summarized from Mako by baba
A computer import company's NIS 401,000 claim against its former accountant, Benjamin Odani, was dismissed by the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court, which ruled the funds were salary, not a loan. Odani's counterclaim for NIS 250,000 was also rejected due to being filed nearly a decade after their employment ended in 2013, exceeding the statute of limitations. The court found the money transfer pattern and lack of collection efforts indicated salary payments, not a loan.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- The Tel Aviv Labor Court ruled funds transferred to ex-accountant Benjamin Odani were salary, not a loan from his employer.
- The company sued Odani for NIS 401,000, claiming it was a loan for Romanian investments.
- Odani argued the money was salary differentials and bonuses, recorded as a loan for financial reporting.
- The court found employment continued until 2013, despite Odani issuing invoices.
- Odani's counterclaim for NIS 250,000 was dismissed due to being filed nearly a decade late.
- Both the company's claim and Odani's counterclaim were fully rejected.
A computer import company, Mono-Mode Trade and Marketing, sued its former accountant, Benjamin Odani, for NIS 401,000, claiming the money was a loan. Odani had worked for the company for 26 years, maintaining a close relationship with its owner, Yechiel Dayan. The dispute began in 2013, leading to the lawsuit in 2020.
The company alleged that in 2008, Dayan agreed to lend Odani NIS 266,151 for investments in Romania, with repayment expected within seven years plus interest. However, Odani contended the funds were salary differentials and bonuses due to increased responsibilities, and were recorded as a loan to present a better financial picture to banks and avoid tax scrutiny.
The Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court ruled that the employment relationship between Odani and the company continued until 2013, even after Odani began issuing invoices instead of receiving payslips in 2008. The court noted that Odani's work largely remained the same, he was subordinate to Dayan, received holiday gifts like other employees, and worked exclusively for the company from 2009.
Key evidence included testimony from the company's accountant at the time, Zvika Drucker, who stated he recorded the funds as a debit balance, not a loan, and defined a loan as a regulated agreement with repayment dates and interest. The court also found the transfer of funds in small, undocumented installments more consistent with salary payments than a loan for property. Furthermore, the company presented no evidence of attempting to collect the funds before filing the lawsuit in 2020, years after the alleged repayment date.
Consequently, the court dismissed the company's claim, ruling the money was salary. Odani's counterclaim for approximately NIS 250,000, including compensation for distress, defamation, VAT reimbursement, unpaid salary, and severance pay, was also rejected. The court determined his counterclaim was filed nearly a decade after the relationship ended in 2013, making it time-barred due to statute of limitations. The court also found that even on its merits, his claims for defamation and unpaid salary lacked sufficient evidence, and he was not dismissed but rather resigned.
Both parties were ordered to bear their own legal costs.
Mentioned
