A Belgian Profile - Mystery and Intrigue Grows as the Isramco Story Continues

A Belgian Profile

(A free translation from Hebrew. The original article published May 8, 2014 by Shay Aspril an investigating reporter of Calcalist a publication of  Yediot Aharonot, the most popular newspaper in Israel)

Robert Arckens was a Belgian businessman who lived with his family in Brussels. Simultaneously, he was also the life partner of Tina Maimon, who bore him three children. Tina is the sister of Kobi Maimon, a mysterious tycoon who is considered the owner of a business empire, despite not being registered as its owner. In reality, Haim Tsuff, a good friend of Kobi Maimon’s, is the individual registered as the owner of this business empire.

But Arckens' heirs claim that their dead father is actually the real owner of the Empire, and that his shares were illegally and improperly transfered to Tsuff. As proof, Arcken’s heirs attached the deposition of Robert Arckens 's mistress, who was with him on the yacht on the day of his death, to the lawsuit that they filed against Tina and Tsuff. Kalkalist’s reporter went to Belgium and returned with a dramatic, intercontinental tale that is worth billions, and that culminates in the control of the Tamar gas reserve.

Shay Aspril, Brussels

Pictured, left to right:

FIRST ROW:

Robert Arcken’s mistress (not pictured) was with Arckens on the yacht on the day of his

death. She has stated that he did not meet with Haim Tsuff on the evening of his death.

SECOND ROW:

Fredericks Arckens, Robert Arckens’ widow. Died in 2012. Her hcildren are suing for the ownership of United Kingsway, claiming that Arckens never transferred the ownership in the company to Haim Tsuff.

Robert Arckens, a Belgian businessman. Died in 1997 on his yacht. Was registered as the owner of United Kingsway, a company worth billions today. Simultaneously maintained

romantic relationships in Belgium and in Israel. His family in Belgium claims that his ownership in the company was hidden from it for years.

Tina Maimon : The sister of Kobi Maimon and hte life partner of Arckens, who was simultaneously married to Fredericks. The two have three children together. She is being sued

by the Belgians, who claim that she hid information from them.

THIRD ROW:

Genevieve, Dominique, and Phillip Arckens (the three children of Robert and Fredericks

Arckens)

The three Israeli children of Robert Arckens and Tina Maimon

FOURTH ROW:

Yuval Ran, the owner of Israel Credit Lines, which collapsed. A partner in a questionable transfer of the oil companies to United Kingsway. He was a past business partner of Haim Tsuff and Kobi Maimon, and is today an enemy of theirs.

United Kingsway: A company registered in the Bahamas, which currently stands in the

middle of the intercontinental conflict. Controls an international empire of energy and real estate companies, including partners in the Tamar gas reserve, Natzba, and Airport City.

Haim Tsuff: The registered owner of United Kingsway. Claims that he purchased the shares from Arckens on the day of his death. Was added by the Belgian family to the lawsuit they filed against Tina Maimon.

Kobi Maimon: “The tycoon with no assets”. He is considered to be the real owner of the

“Maimon-- Tsuff " group, although he is not registered as the owner or as a position holder in any of the companies. He is a good friend and business partner of Haim Tsuff.

FIFTH ROW:

Itzhak Miron : The receiver of Israel Credit Lines. Secretly signed a cooperation agreement

with the Arckens heirs in Belgium. Today they threaten to sue him, claiming that he used information that they gave him against their agreement for him to do so.

Chapter 1 : A Surprise at the Funeral

On Monday, August 4, 1997, amid hot and humid weather, a few dozen people came

to the church of Kraainem on the outskirts of Brussels. The participants came to the wake of a Belgian businessman (Robert Arckens), who died the week before as a result of cardiac arrest while he was on his ship in the Bourgogne Canal in France. After the ceremony many mourners went to shake hands with members of the family, which consisted of the widow Fredericks Arckens and her three children Philip, Dominique and Geneviève, then in their

30s.

Also attending the event was a dark good looking woman, who was unfamiliar to most of the attendees, but who was all too familiar to the Arckens family. Her name was Tina Maimon, and she was the sister of the mysterious Kobi Maimon. She came to the ceremony accompanied by a nine-year-old girl and a stocky man of about 40. The family members were aware that Tina had a relationship with Robert Arckens, while he was married to Fredericks. The young girl accompanying Tina Maimon was one of the three children that she shared with Robert Arckens, who frequently flew from Belgium to Israel to be with Tina Maimon and the children.

After the ceremony Tina Maimon spoke to Philip, Robert Arcken’s oldest son, and her the half-brother of her daughter. "I want to introduce you to a good friend of your father’s," said Tina to Phillip, gesturing towards the man who was approaching.

"Hello, I am Haim Tsuff," said the man to Philip, who had never met him before. "I would like to offer my condolences, I was a close friend of your father’s." Philip asked Tsuff how he knew his father, and Tsuff replied that after said they frequently did business together,

and that Robert was an outstanding businessman. After a few more comforting words, Tsuff left.

Tina remained at Phillip’s side, and began asking him questions whose meaning he did not understand. For example, Tina inquired whether any documents were found on La Marica De Bleharies, the ship on which Phillip’s father died. Surprised at the question, Philip responded that his father did not leave any documents on the ship. Tina dismissed his confusion by making a general statement about his father's business in Israel, and eventually left the church with her daughter and Tsuff.

Robert Arckens. After four years of court battles, the Arckens family agreed to pay $450,000 to the children of Robert Arckens and Tina Maimon.

Chapter 2. A Dramatic Encounter at the Apartment

Two months later, on October 15, Tina Maimon, accompanied by her brother Kobi, knocked on the door of Fredericks Arckens on Avenue des Tourterelles in Brussels. The reason for the unexpected visit was the contract that the two women had signed a week after the funeral. The agreement committed Fredericks to pay Arckens’ three Israeli children a monthly sum of $6,000. After Tina and Kobi entered the house, the discussion quickly turned into a heated argument.

According to the oldest son Philip, and the family's lawyer Bernard Maingain (from

the Belgian Xirius law firm), who were updated on the visit as soon as it ended, Kobi Maimon claimed that the monthly funds that his sister was receiving were insufficient. As a result, Bernard Maingain set up a meeting between the four involved individuals to straighten things out.

The meeting took place one month later, at the Au Relais restaurant in Brussels. The lawyer Bernard Maingain, Phillip Arckens, Kobi Maimon, and an additional lawyer that Maimon had hired, attended the meeting. Throughout the meal, Maingain and Phillip attempted to claim that the $6,000 that the family had been transferring monthly to Arckens’

Israeli children was a fair sum. According to them, Maimon claimed that Robert Arckens had

additional assets, which the family was hiding from his sister Tina.

Maimon’s recently hired Belgian lawyer (name withheld) also tried to persuade Maimon to accept the monthly sum that the family had been transferring to Tina. According to Bernard Maingain and Philip, Maimon was quick to respond: he fired his lawyer on the spot.

Phillip Arckens recounts that after the newly-fired lawyer left, Kobi Maimon looked into his eyes and said: "I am very rich, and I can hire the best lawyers in Belgium. I will make sure that the Arckens family will lose all of its assets". Maimon then got up and left.

Several months later, Tina Maimon and her three children filed a claim on Arckens’ estate. Kobi Maimon, Tina’s brother, funded her legal expenses. After four years of bitter fighting and accusations, and several judicial decisions, the parties reached a settlement: the Arckens family would pay a one—time payment of $450,000 to the children of Tina and Robert Arckens. The settlement was approved in court in Belgium and then in Israel, and both sides declared that each had revealed to the other party any and all information known to them regarding the assets of Robert Arckens.

Chapter 3. A Death on the Yacht

Before we continue discussing the plot of the saga, it is important to take a moment to understand what is the hidden meaning of this intercontinental, familial dispute.

A "Calcalist" investigation last January revealed the fact that Arckens’ heirs in Belgium were to file a lawsuit against Haim Tsuff, centering on a dramatic claim: the United Kingsway shares did not belong to Tsuff, but in reality belonged to the Arckens family. United Kingsway, as shown in the accompanying diagram, controls many shares in a huge business empire. Is the controlling shareholder of Equital, which also controls a network of public and private companies, including the large real estate corporations Nitzba and Airport City, and energy companies with inexhaustible potential such as ISRAMCO Inc., Nafta Expeditions, HNL Dead Sea, and the crown jewel: the Israeli company ISRAMCO, through which the United Kingsway holds 29% of the Tamar gas reserves.

The Empire at the Heart of the Conflict

First Row: Haim Tsuff (in red) 

Second Row: From left to right: The Livnat family, United Kingsway
Third Row: Y.H.K.
Fourth Row: Equital
Fifth Row: Yoel
Sixth Row: From left to right: Airport City, Nafta
Seventh Row: From left to right: Natzba Holdings, Isramco, Isramco Inc. (oil wells in the United States) Eighth Row: The Tamar gas reserve

It is important to note that the oil and energy corporations previously belonged to the Yuval Ran’s company, Israel Credit Lines. After Israel Credit Lines collapsed, they were transferred in a questionable transaction to the United Kingsway, and are still held by it today.

There is no dispute over the fact that Robert Arckens was presented to the authorities in Israel and abroad as the shareholder of United Kingsway. There is also no dispute about the fact that Haim Tsuff is currently registered as the owner of the company. The question being disputed is how and under which circumstances the shares were transferred to Haim Tsuff.

The central claim of the Arckens family’s heirs is that these shares were never actually purchased from Arckens, as Tsuff reported.

At the meeting that I held with members of the Arckens family three weeks ago at the Xirius law firm in Brussels, the family members did not hesitate to attack Maimon and especially Tsuff, the registered shareholder of United Kingsway, who declared several times to the authorities that he acquired the control of Arckens’ company before Arckens’ death. "Haim Tsuff could not have purchased the shares because my father was on his yacht, in the trenches of France, two hours away from the city of Auxerre, in a very difficult to reach area, with a witness who spent the day with him," explained Philip Arckens, 52, and began to show me many documents.

The Tamar drilling rig. United Kingway owns 29%.

All documents that Phillip showed me were recently attached to a lawsuit filed by the family in a Belgian court against Tina Maimon and, in addition, against Haim Tsuff. The family sued Tina, claiming that she hid the existence of United Kingsway when the settlement between the families was approved in 2003. The lawsuit mentioned Haim Tsuff as well,

stating that "while Mr. Haim Tsuff presents himself as the sole shareholder in United

Kingsway, prosecutors are certain that he is merely an impostor, an individual who pretends that these shares belong to him, despite the fact that he never purchased them from the late Robert Arckens... Haim Tsuff took advantage of Arckens’ death, and of Arckens’ legal heirs’ unawareness of the existence of this property, in order to claim that he is the sole shareholder in United Kingsway, for which he never paid, and which he never purchased ... ".

In the lawsuit filed by the Arckens’ family, the court is requested to cancel the agreement signed with Tina, to determine that the shares of United Kingsway belong, in fact, to the Arckens’ Belgian heirs, to award the Arckens family 10 million euros for immediate damages, and to appoint an expert to estimate the value of the United Kingsway shares. The lawsuit mentioned that in the past, the shares of United Kingsway were valued at a total of 800 million euro (it is important to note that this valuation sounds almost excessive, considering the value of the public companies in the group. Regardless, this was not the value of the shares at the time of Arckens’ death, which was much lower). The first hearing in the lawsuit will be held in one week.

Attorney Bouvier (on the right), Attorney Miron

(in the lower left corner), and Phillip Arckens.

“ The family will not allow its property to be stolen once again. ”

Chapter 4. Google Finds the Dead

Grandfather

At this point, we can return to the main story and ask - where was the Belgian Arckens family all these years? Why didn’t it demand its rights to United Kingsway, which it claims belongs to it? Is it possible that the family never suspected that the head of the family, Robert, was the owner of United Kingsway?

During the long interview in Brussels, it was revealed that there was one point in time, when the Arckens family was close to making a discovery. In 2003, when Charles, Robert Arckens’ 12 years old grandson, surfed the Internet and "Googled" his dead grandfather's name. The young grandson, currently 23 years old, joined the interview as well, and told me that his Google search lead him to the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he read that "the director Tina Arckens is the wife of Robert Arckens, the controlling shareholder of United Kingsway...".

This sentence was taken from the March 1997 report of ISRAMCO Inc., one of the companies controlled by the United Kingsway, and signed by its then—Chairman of the Board Haim Tsuff. Young Charles, who did not understand the meaning of the his finding, revealed it to his mother Geneviève, Robert Arckens’ middle child, who then turned to the lawyer Bernard Maingain. Maingain confessed that he had never heard the name United Kingsway, and that throughout the financial arrangement with Tina the name had never come up.

In September 2003 Bernard Maingain sent Tina Maimon a letter asking her to explain her involvement in ISRAMCO and United Kingsway, and also her relationship to Tsuff. "Some troubling details have come to the attention of my client... We have learned of the existence of a company called United Kingsway, which was controlled by Robert Arckens, whose existence was completely hidden from my client... such concealment constitutes a criminal offense," he wrote in the letter.

Tina Maimon replied in a letter one month later, claiming that she had previously heard the name United Kingsway, and that she heard the late Arckens say that he represents private investors in this company. Regarding the mention of Tina Maimon as the director of ISRAMCO (one of the companies controlled by the United Kingsway), Tina claimed that she was indeed a director in the company, but she did not have any active duties beyond this role. Regarding her relationship to Haim Tsuff, Maimon replied that she knew him, but that she is not thoroughly familiar with his business. Additionally, Tina Maimon wrote that after the

death of Robert Arckens, Tsuff told her that that the late Arckens had owed him a lot of money.

This letter apparently satisfied Bernard Maingain at the time. Today he looks back

with regret. "Maybe we should have explored this point further," he tells me in a meeting with him, but explains the reason he failed to do so: "Fredericks did not want to hear about

anything that had to do with Israel."

Philip also explains the reason for this the fact that the family failed to examine of a piece of information that might have proven to be a precious asset: "After four years of litigation with Tina, my mom did not want to hear about the affair," he says. "Each time we offered to explore United Kingsway, she would refuse, saying she does not want to hear anything about Israel. This issue caused her health to deteriorate and all she wanted was quiet. So we left it at that."

Chapter 5. The Mistress Provides an Affidavit

The key question remains whether Arckens transferred his shares at United Kingsway to Haim Tsuff before his death. Records show that in October 1997 ISRAMCO Inc. Reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that on July 25 –five days before the death of Arckens on the ship – the ownership of United Kingsway was transferred from Arckens to Tsuff, in exchange for Tsuff meeting the obligations of the company.

The Arckens family absolutely denies the truth of this statement. They have provided the court depositions of three witnesses who declared that Arckens was with them on his

yacht in in the trenches of France in the weeks before his death. One of the witnesses is one of the Arckens’ mistresses. According to her affidavit, on July 25, the day on which, according

to ISRAMCO INC., Haim Tsuff purchased United Kingsway’s shares, she stayed with the late Arckens throughout the entire day, and Arckens did not meet with Tsuff.

"Our cruise began on July 15 ... and continued until July 30, the day of Robert’s death," declared Robert’s mistress. When asked if it was possible that during this time the late Arckens sold shares to Kobi Maimon or Haim Tsuff, she answers: "it’s very unlikely, because we did not see anybody ... the phone on the ship was silent ... and no one came to the ship."

Tsuff, however, was careful to emphasize that over the years up to 1997 Arckens was United Kingsway’s controlling shareholder, and that only afterwards he sold his shares to Tsuff. For example, his June 2011 interview to The Marker states that "According to Tsuff, Arckens financed the transaction (the purchase of the oil corporations from Israel Credit Lines), and two years later Tsuff, who was his representative in Israel, acquired the shares from him."

Even eight months earlier, when the attorney Yitzhak Miron, the receiver of Israel Creidt Lines who examined the legality of the transfer of the oil corporations to United Kingsway, investigated Tsuff, Tsuff made the same claim that until 1997 Arckens was the shareholder of United Kingsway.

Miron: "When did you purchase the company... United Kingsway?". Tsuff: "1997".

Miron: “… From whom did you purchase it ? Tsuff : "From Robert Arckens."

Miron: "What was your position in this company before you made this purchase?".

Tsuff: "I was Robert Arckens’ representative ... in the company, in United Kingsway ... Robert Arckens was the owner ... I was the representative in the company."

Miron: "You claim that you purchased it on a specific date."

Tsuff: "I did purchase it, I do not merely claim that I purchased it...".

Miron: "For how long did you conduct negotiations over the purchase of this company?" Tsuff: "I don’t remember."

Miron: "One month? Six months?". Tsuff: "I don’t remember."

Miron: "One day? Give me a time frame...".

Tsuff: "I don’t suppose it was one day, but I don’t remember how long it was." Miron: "How much money did you pay for it?"

Tsuff: "I don’t remember."

Miron: "Could it be that you didn’t pay a cent for it?"

Tsuff: "No. I don’t believe that someone would give me this company for free, but I have a contract. We were very loyal to this contract... you can’t have the contract...".

Miron: "I can’t have the contract?" Tsuff: "No".

Miron, the lawyer, continued to play a key role in the developing plot. Among other things, six months ago, on September 29, 2013, Miron organized a meeting between Haim Tsuff and Phillip Arckens in his Tel Aviv office.

I assume you asked Tsuff for explanations regarding the United Kingsway shares.

Philip: "I told him that if he could give me some plausible explanations, I’ll disregard the entire story. I asked to tell me where he boarded the ship, when exactly he boarded the ship, how much he paid, and where are the documents to prove that he bought the shares of United Kingsway.

And what did he say?

"He did not answer my questions, he only looked me in the eyes and said, “ you say that the shares belong to your family? Prove it. ”

Chapter 6. A Straw Man Worth Millions

One version of the story, which was raised again and again over the years, was that Arckens was not the real shareholder who financed the deal, but that he was in reality straw man of Kobi Maimon. This version appeared for example, in an article profiling Maimon which was published in the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in November 1999, with the title" I Touched Gold ”. The article stated that Maimon was “a man worth millions with almost no

assets listed under his name ... he has messengers whose qualifications are unclear…a significant portion of his businesses are registered under the name Robert Arckens... who served as the front in Maimon’s businesses. "

In an affidavit filed by Yuval Ran six months ago, in November 2013, to the District Court in Tel Aviv, Ran wrote that he met Kobi Maimon and Robert Arckens in 1995, and that he got the sense that Arckens was Maimon’s straw man. "It was clear to me..." wrote Ran in his affidavit, "and to anyone who was connected to Israel Credit Lines at the time, that he [Arckens] was not the real owner of United Kingsway, but that he was merely a straw man of Maimon and Tsuff." According to Ran’s affidavit, over the years Maimon made sure to use straw men who were not subject to Israeli tax law (including Tsuff, a resident of Holland) to avoid paying taxes.

Yet Kobi Maimon, Haim Tsuff, and the Arckens family members deny the “straw man” claim. The Arckens family members understand that the ruling that their father was Maimon’s straw man weakens their claim to be the legal shareholders of United Kingsway.

On the other hand, Maimon and Tsuff understand that if they claim that Arckens was merely a straw man, it would mean that they used a straw man to defraud the Israeli tax authorities. This may put into question the legality of additional transactions of theirs, and may cause problems for Maimon with the Israeli tax authorities.

Chapter 7. Yuval Ran Switches Sides

During the long hours with the Arckens family members in Belgium, it was possible to see the their hostility at the mention of Maimon or Tsuff, but also at their anger at Miron, the receiver of Israel Credit Lines. "No matter what happens from here and on, I simply do not trust this man," Phillip Arckens explained.

To understand the background of the complex relationship between Miron and the Arckens family, it is necessary to skip back to the beginning of the plot. In the late 1990s, Israel Credit Lines dealt with financing outside of banks, and establishing companies with no business activity, and issuing stock in them. In 2002 Miron was appointed by the court to be the permanent receiver of Israel Credit Lines, and filed a lawsuit two years later against a host of defendants, demanding that they return sums of money to the collapsed company for the benefit of its creditors.

Among the defendants, one can find three major figures relevant to our story: the first is Yuval Ran, the owner of Israel Credit Lines, who has been living in Houston, Texas since the collapse of the company in 1997. Two additional characters are Maimon and Tsuff.

Miron tried to prove, inter alia, that Ran, Maimon, and Tsuff made Israel Credit Lines take loans it could not meet, against a pledge of shares of the oil company that it owned. When Israel Credit Lines did not survive the repayment of these loans, the shares of the oil company moved to the United Kingsway (76%) and to the Livnat family, who owns Taabura and is one of the wealthiest families in Israel, and which is headed by Avraham "Bondi" Livnat.

For years the receiver walked around in the dark. Yuval Ran had not visited the country, and attempts to lay hands on his assets in the United States failed. Maimon, Tsuff

and the Livnat family hired top lawyers who exhausted Miron with endless foot-dragging. But

towards the end of 2009 a bitter dispute broke out between Maimon and Tsuff, and Ran, their past business partner. As a result, in early 2010 Ran decided to "switch sides." He met with Miron in New York and began to give him large amounts of information.

In one of the phone calls between Ran and Miron, Ran told Miron about a meeting with the Belgian Robert Arckens, and that after the surprising death of Arckens in July 1997

Tsuff told him that he was going to Belgium to transfer the shares from Arckens’ name to his own, for fear that Arckens' heirs would take over the shares of United Kingsway. Ran repeated these words in his affidavit to the court in November 2013: "They (Maimon and Tsuff) told me that Tsuff went to Belgium and handled the transfer of shares from Arckens’

name to his own name..." he wrote. "I do not know what exactly... they did there, but they told

me that the operation eventually succeeded. That the shares were indeed registered under Tsuff’s name. The investigation of the dates of the transfer in United Kingsway’s ownership shows that backdating was performed by Maimon and Tsuff for several days before the actual death of Arckens ".

This information was priceless for Miron. After many long years that resulted in a dead end, he realized that if Tsuff did not acquire Arckens’ shares before his death, then the business empire belonging to him and to his friend Maimon was in jeopardy. Miron tracked down Fredericks, Arckens’ widow, and on June 1, 2011, he picked up the phone.

Chapter 8. A Surprising Phone Call to the Widow

The day that Miron called Belgium was the first time that the Arckens family heard that the father of the Arckens family possessed an asset worth a considerable sum of money. Fredericks answered the phone call at her new house on Avenue des Fougeres, to which she had moved several years earlier.

The speaker on the line introduced himself as Yitzhak Miron, an Israeli lawyer acting on behalf of the court, and asked to meet with her regarding her dead husband and his

business with Kobi Maimon. The frightened Fredericks, who had been left traumatized by her memory of legal conflict with Maimon, wanted to refuse the request, but following the advice of the attorney Bernard Maingain, who she updated on the conversation, she decided to meet with Miron.

Less than two weeks later, on June 13, 2011, Miron reached Fredericks's house, where he was greeted by her son in law, Felix Meyer, and the attorney Maingain. Shortly after Miron returned to the house, this time to sign the preliminary draft of cooperation with the eldest son Philip.

"The thing is that Miron not approach in a positive way, but in a threatening way," Philip said to me in my conversation with him. "He said that he had the authority of the court in Israel to sue the Arckens estate and to seize the assets of the Arckens heirs in Belgium as a result of offenses allegedly committed by my father, as the owner of United Kingsway. My mother turned gray from fear, then he told her that he would not sue the family if we

transferred him the rights to the lawsuit against Tsuff and Maimon. We refused, but continued to be in touch with him. "

But if your father was truly the owner of United Kingsway, and there is suspicion that the shares of the oil companies were transferred to United illegally from Israel Credit Lines, then Miron really has a reason to sue the estate.

"Our father was not involved in any illegal activity."

So why did you not only stay in touch with, but also sign a cooperation agreement with, a person who allegedly approached you threateningly?

"You see, my mother was then 73 (Fredericks Arckens died in March 2012), an elderly woman who had been through a long and unpleasant trial facing difficult allegations by the Maimon family. Then, when she thought that she had put everything behind, Miron appeared with charges. At the same time she was also recovering from a difficult bypass surgery, and when she realized that she has to deal with accusations and threats of legal proceedings to take her everything she worked for once again, she just told us to do whatever it takes so that she would not have to go through this procedure again. "

But you and your sisters did sign an agreement with Miron after her death. Did you have a lawyer to advise you then?

"Yes, and after a consultation we realized we had nothing to lose. We got the impression that if we would cooperate, we would be able to allow the victims of Tsuff and Maimon to get their money back, and we would also be able to gain from an asset that belonged to our father. Therefore we agreed to sign a cooperation agreement, but after we agreed to cooperate with him, Miron used us all along the way to achieve accomplishments in his battle against Maimon and Tsuff. This is the reason that today I do not trust him. "

Chapter 9. Dividing the Spoils

There was something very non-Israeli about the Belgian family who sat across from me in the office of attorney Bernard Maingain. All present family members - Philip, Dominique (48), her ex-husband Felix Meyer (57), who was involved in the family business for many years (Robert Arckens owned a advertising company called Mobility and was a franchisee of Dr. Martens shoes in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), and Charles, the son of the middle Arckens sister Geneviève. They all gave the impression of being intelligent people, but, but something in them transmitted a European innocence light years away from the impression given by the stars of the Israel Credit Lines saga.

This is perhaps the reason why when Miron arrived in Belgium, he could have caused the family to sign a contract, which according to the family was not their ultimate contract. According to the language of the contract, which was signed in July 2012 after being edited by their attorney Bernard Maingain: “ The receivers and the lawyer Maingain will examine together, in the interests of the parties, the best ways to get the United Kingsway shares and the price for them, including the assignment of the rights of the heirs to the receivers ... ".

Under the agreement, after receiving the United Kingsway shares they would be sold at market price, and the proceeds will be divided between the parties as follows: in the first stage the procedure expenses would be paid for all, including Miron’s fees. In the second stage the family would be paid the amount of 100 thousand euros. In the third stage the

remaining duties shall be paid to creditors of Israel Credit Lines. In the fourth stage, if there be anything left of the amount, it will be divided between the Arckens family and the shareholders of Israel Credit Lines (Yuval Ran, for example).

According to the family members, they never received the signed agreement, yet provided information to Miron regardless. One of the most valuable pieces of information was the existence of the witness, Arckens’ witness, who was present on the deck of the yacht on

the day that Robert Arckens died. Miron contacted her lawyer, and with his help persuaded

the woman to sign a statement saying that Arckens did not meet anyone on the boat during the

days before his death, and that he certainly did not sell any of his shares at that time. At the end of July 2013 Miron’s office received the affidavit that could jeopardize Maimon and Tsuff’s entire business empire.

Chapter 10. Miron the Receiver Denies a Connection

On the day that he received the fateful statement, Miron was already in an advanced stage of the mediation process with the Maimon-Tsuff group. Four days later, the journalist Sivan Aizescu reported on the plan that was being developed. In October 2013 a formal settlement agreement would be signed, whereby the Maimon and Tsuff group would pay 60 million NIS to the liquidation fund (this sum increased to 65 million NIS after Discount Bank joined the settlement).

In early August, after verbal agreements were reached regarding the settlement, Miron sent a letter to attorney Bernard Maingain, updating him that the agreement was to be signed. According to Miron’s version, which was detailed clearly in his letter, "the 60 million agreement" was not signed as a result of the cooperation between him and Arckens heirs. This claim is very important because the Belgians would possess the right to object to the compromise only if it was based on their cooperation. If agreement was not based on the cooperation with the Arckens family, it would be sufficient to update them of its existence,

and their agreement would not be required.

The Arckens family claims that Miron used their signature on the agreement with him, and the information that they provided him to increase his power throughout the mediation process, without informing them of the arrangement and in opposition to his obligation to cooperate with them. Miron denies this claim, emphasizing that the arrangement that he obtained with Maimon and Tsuff is completely unrelated to the information given to him by the Belgians.

According to Miron, throughout the mediation process he did not reveal to the counterparty that there was a possibility that the Arckens family could sue them, and that he only did so only in the last stage, before the signing of the settlement agreement. "Throughout the mediation process the receivers did not reveal to the Maimon-Tsuff group that there was the possibility that the Arckens family could sue them, ” Miron wrote to attorney Bernard Maingain one month ago. "When we came to an agreement in the sum of 60 million NIS, we had no choice but to reveal to them the agreement between the receivers and the Arckens family ... before we agreed the indicated amount, I had to reveal to Maimon and Tsuff the fact that I know of a lawsuit that may be filed against them, which the receivers would benefit from. I had to do so according to the duty of good faith required by Israeli law. "

Concurrently with the 60 million NIS settlement agreement, Miron transferred a message to the attorneys of Tsuff and Maimon, saying that that he would be able to convince the Belgians to give up their lawsuit for an additional 2 million euro. To support his claim that there was no connection between the settlement agreement and his relationship to the Arckens family, Miron wrote to Maingain that Tsuff reacted nonchalantly when he heard that a lawsuit may be filed by the Arckens family against him and against Maimon. "Haim Tsuff’s response to the information (about the Arckens family) was a lack of interest," Miron wrote to Maingain, "... he argued that the Arckens family did not bother him ... He argued that the only outcome of a lawsuit by the Arckens family would be a waste of the family’s finances ... "

Chapter 11. The Humiliating Agreement is Rejected

But the facts show that Tsuff still wanted to eliminate the nuisance. A meeting organized by Miron in his office in September, which was held two weeks before the signing of the "60 million NIS agreement", was attended by Phillip Arckens, his lawyers Bernard Maingain and Thibault Bouvier, and Tsuff and one of his lawyers, Yaron Allachaoi from the Gornitzky law firm. The Belgians came to the meeting with the understanding that the two million euro agreement mentioned by Miron was only Tsuff’s first offering. They quickly realized that this was his final offer. "You’re trying to blackmail me," snapped Tsuff at Philip Arckens, and stormed out.

The stunned Belgians were left with Miron, who argued that they should embrace Tsuff’s proposal. From their conversations with Miron, the Belgians understood that the sum that they would be left with out of the 2 million euro would be only 100 thousand euro (after the payment of the remainder of the sum to the liquidation fund and to Miron himself, as had been agreed between them). Miron told them that in his opinion they should agree, since they could equally find themselves on the list of the defendants in the case.

Phillip Arckens and the lawyers left Tel Aviv feeling angry. One week after their departure, on October 9, 2013, Bernard Maingain sent a strong letter to Miron in which he stated conclusively that the Arckens family would not sign the " humiliating agreement" presented to it. "Throughout the meeting with Miron, Miron repeated to me over and over that it would be better to have one bird in the hand than two in the bush,” says Philip." He did not understand that the Arckens family would not allow its property to be stolen from it once again. "

The Belgians’ refusal to compromise was somewhat surprising to Miron, Tsuff and Maimon, but they chose to sign the settlement anyway. Four days after the final refusal of the Belgians, on October 13, Miron called a meeting of the shareholders of Israel Credit Lines

and introduced to them the compromise agreement, without uttering a single word of the

existence of the Arckens heirs. Two days later, on October 15, Miron signed a settlement agreement with a long list of defendants, led by Maimon, Tsuff and Livnat family, under which the defendants would pay 60 million NIS to eliminate the receiver’s lawsuits against them. The arrangement was submitted to the court for approval (with the addition of a secret appendix informing the court about the Arckens family), and was later approved.

Chapter 12. The Yacht Sails On

Next week, on May 15, in Court Number 7 in Brussels, the first hearing in the lawsuit filed by the family Arckens against Tina Maimon, to which Tsuff was added, will take place. Shortly after “ Musaf Calcalist "turned to Tsuff requesting a response, Equital, a subsidiary of United Kingsway, reported to the Stock Exchange that a lawsuit had been filed against Tsuff, and noted that "Mr. Haim Tsuff’s position is that this procedure against him is without merit and has no chance of succeeding. "

According to representatives of the Arckens family, it is only a matter of days before a claim is filed against Mr. Miron. "The Arckens family decided to initiate legal proceedings ... against you, as the receiver of Israel Credit Lines, ” Maingain wrote to Miron on April 22. In three weeks, on May 28, Phillip Arckens and his lawyers are expected to land in Tel Aviv

once again, this time to meet with the Israeli Securities Authority and the Israeli Tax

Authority, which is investigating the factors involved in the case.

It is safe to assume that during their visit they will meet with Miron, who has turned from a friend to an enemy, and with Tsuff, who emailed attorney Maingain a few weeks ago asking to meet again. It is safe to assume that he is interested in preventing the possibility of the development of a nightmare scenario that would crack his and Maimon’s billion-dollar empire.

As we shall see now, if Maimon and Tsuff’s boat gets rattled, it won’t happen because of the many enemies that they have gained along the way or for because of investigations conducted by the authorities. It might just happen because of another boat, a yacht, to be precise, that belonged to an old friend, a business partner, a Belgian publicist with a fondness for women, whose children decided to bring him back from the dead after 17 years underground.

Comments

On behalf of Haim Tsuff response: "The claim of the heirs of Robert Arckens when stocks United Kingsway baseless and raised by them as part of a trial of faith extort money. Mr. Tsuff holds the shares of United Kingsway by law, and not to the heirs of Mr. Arckens do not show even slightest evidence indicating that the late payments made in respect thereof. Mr. Arkckens was tied to shares for a short time and were transferred to Mr. Tsuff legally by a trustee who held them as collateral to secure compliance with its commitments of Mr. Arckens.

"Arckens passed away in 1997, we were almost two decades ago. Successors, using the same lawyer representing them today, have raised questions about the United Kingsway shares before the ten years since fallen silent. They woke up from their slumber only recently, because they believed that as part of a compromise reached Mesh bag Credit will be able to

drop into the pockets of funds do not reach them. context it should be noted that the argument Settlement reached in suit was signed credit lines resulting liquidator introduced the so-called information that has connection to the claims Amitot' Arckens, was unfounded. opposite is true. joint lines of credit claimed Mr. Arckens lacked rights shares. every case, the settlement was signed with the joint regardless of the claims of Arckens. has no thought of Mr. Tsuff is no doubt that allegations baseless picky and raise all the heirs will be rejected by the court. "

Lawyers on behalf of Kobi's response: "The arrangement between the sister of Mr. Maimon and heirs Arckens is a private matter - family no public interest in him, and therefore there is no place to raise it by you or publish it."

On behalf of Mr. Miron said: "The joints have no intention to comment on the Arckens allegations, due to secrecy imposed by the court on the matter."

Tina Maimon declined to comment.