Avargil et al. v. Yaakov et al.

Why this matter is tracked

Record details

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

1. Fabricated: Case Law | The report relied on a purported Supreme Court decision described as the “Aharoni precedent,” cited as CA 136/14 Mercantile Discount Bank Ltd. v. Aharoni. The court could not locate the proceeding by number or party names and found that the cited authority did not exist.
2. Misrepresented: Case Law | The report cited a decision involving TA 1793/04 as establishing broad bank liability for trust accounts. The court found that this proceeding did not concern the issue described and identified the relevant decision as an entirely different proceeding, MApp 13023/07, issued by a District Court rather than the Supreme Court.
3. Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | The report attributed a quotation concerning banks’ fiduciary duties to a book titled “Commercial Law” by Prof. Ricardo Ben-Oliel. The court’s independent check did not locate the cited book, article, or quotation, and the report provided no verifiable page or source reference.
4. Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The report purported to quote sections 20, 25, and 27 of Israel’s Payment Services Law, 2019, but the court compared the quotations with the official statute and found that the provisions addressed different subjects and that the quoted language had been invented or materially distorted.
5. Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The report referred generally to orders under the Prohibition of Money Laundering Law without identifying the specific order, preventing verification of the asserted legal source.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Avargil et al. v. Yaakov et al.?

Fabricated: Case Law | The report relied on a purported Supreme Court decision described as the “Aharoni precedent,” cited as CA 136/14 Mercantile Discount Bank Ltd. v. Aharoni. The court could not locate the proceeding by number or party names and found that the cited authority did not exist. Outcome: Report Struck; Adverse Costs Order.

Why does Avargil et al. v. Yaakov et al. matter for legal AI risk?

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Report Struck; Adverse Costs Order in MC Nof HaGalil-Nazareth. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

What does the public record establish about Avargil et al. v. Yaakov et al.?

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Which source supports this Avargil et al. v. Yaakov et al. summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.