Tel Aviv Court Orders Woman to Pay Ex-Partner Millions Over Missing Rare Blue Diamond
The Tel Aviv District Court rejected an appeal by a woman who was ordered to pay her ex-partner 3.2 million shekels for rare diamonds she allegedly took from their shared apartment. The couple had been together for about 18 years and signed a prenuptial agreement that separated their assets completely. After their relationship deteriorated and mutual restraining orders were issued, the man claimed the woman used her time alone in the apartment to hide a bag containing valuable diamonds and jewelry he had concealed around the home.
The man supported his claim with circumstantial evidence, including an agreement for both to undergo polygraph tests. The results indicated the man was truthful while the woman lied. Additional testimony came from the man’s sister, who recounted the removal of diamonds from a shared safe, and a diamond manufacturer who inspected the bag in 2019 and valued its contents, highlighting a rare and valuable blue diamond.
The woman denied the diamonds ever existed in the apartment and accused her ex-partner of being a gambler and tax evader who smuggled diamonds illegally, arguing the court should not assist him under the principle that "no remedy arises from wrongdoing." She also challenged the polygraph’s reliability, claiming it was forced on her during emotional distress.
Judges Naftali Shila, Einat Ravid, and Yehezkel Eliyahu upheld the family court’s ruling, finding the woman’s testimony unreliable and noting she admitted to knowing about the diamonds and moving the bag at the man’s request. The court ruled that the man’s failure to report the diamonds to tax or customs authorities did not negate his ownership rights or justify denying compensation for theft. The court accepted the diamond expert’s valuation as reasonable.
The woman’s appeal was fully dismissed, leaving her liable for the 3.2 million shekel compensation, 55,000 shekels in legal fees, and reimbursement for the polygraph expert’s costs. The court also ordered that the appeal bond she deposited be transferred to the man to cover these expenses.
Family law attorney Uri Nechmani explained that in cases lacking direct proof of ownership, courts rely on circumstantial evidence and corroborating testimonies, including polygraph results as part of the overall evidence. He noted that even if the source of property is questionable, ownership rights remain unless there is a direct causal link to the claimed damage, principles applied in this ruling.
