Case FileIndependent investigation

Legal proceedings / Receiver / Affidavits

Attorney Victor Fisher: two affidavits, two explanations

Two Affidavits, Two Explanations

Attorney Victor Fisher: two affidavits, two explanations

Twice, attorney Victor Fisher, the court-appointed receiver and a partner at the Chen Fisher Gabbay law office, attached an affidavit with exactly the same wording: "I hereby confirm that all the details set out in the attached report have been checked and, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, are correct." Twice, the enforcement registrar ordered him to clarify a detail in the attached documents. The first time he answered: "a technical gap in updating the bank's systems only". The second time: "an error of the clerk handling the matter". This article sets the documents side by side, together with the decisions that do not support the vehicle owner. All quotations are translated from Hebrew.

In brief

  1. The receiver's report of early August 2026 included a ledger line for a stage B attorney fee of 21,456.50 NIS, a fee that a judicial decision had cancelled back in October 2025.
  2. On 31 August 2026 attorney Victor Fisher attributed the line to "a technical gap in updating the bank's systems only" and wrote that "there is no basis for the stage B fee component in the debt".
  3. On 21 October 2026 he asked to approve the sale of the vehicle owner's car to a buyer named Mordechai. Next to the name appeared an ID number that, according to the Population Registry, belongs to his daughter. On 2 November 2026 he explained: "an error of the clerk handling the matter".
  4. The application included a proof of delivery bearing a signature that the vehicle owner declares is not his. The registrar held that his claims about the deliveries were not substantiated. The vehicle owner filed ethics complaints against attorney Victor Fisher, and they have not been decided.

The first affidavit and the fee line

On 8 June 2026 attorney Victor Fisher signed an affidavit "in support of the report submitted in enforcement file no. 515509-06-24". Another attorney from his office certified that he had warned him that he must tell the truth and that otherwise he would be liable to the penalties prescribed by law. The affidavit was attached to the receiver's report filed with the Haifa enforcement registrar in early August 2026.

Attorney Victor Fisher: paragraph 2 of the affidavit of 8.6.2026, confirming that all details in the report were checked
Paragraph 2 of attorney Victor Fisher's affidavit of 8 June 2026 (Hebrew original). The first line, which contains the declarant's ID number, and the attorney's certification are not shown. Click the image to open it in full size.

Attached to the report was a ledger of Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing Ltd printed on 22 July 2026, about six weeks after the date of the affidavit. Its last line reads "שכ"ט ב" (attorney fee, stage B), 21,456.50 NIS, dated 22/07/2026, and the balance rises from 179,627.58 to 201,084.08 NIS.

Attorney Victor Fisher: last line of the Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing ledger of 22.7.2026, stage B attorney fee of 21,456.50 NIS
Column headings and the last line of the ledger of 22 July 2026 (Hebrew original). The two strips were cut from the same page and placed one above the other; the account details and the vehicle owner's name are not shown. The red frame was added for emphasis. Click the image to open it in full size.

The same amount was added to the debt in the promissory note file on 29 January 2025. On 21 October 2025 the Netanya enforcement registrar cancelled all proceedings in that file, after finding that the vehicle owner was outside Israel on the reported date of service, and wrote: "I order the cancellation of all proceedings taken in the file, and the cancellation of the stage B attorney fee added to the debt in the file".

The first explanation: "a technical gap"

On 10 August 2026 the vehicle owner asked for instructions to the receiver. On 16 August 2026 the registrar wrote: "However, a review of the ledger shows that it includes a stage B attorney fee component, although this component was apparently cancelled in the other proceeding. The creditor shall therefore clarify the reason for leaving this component in the claimed balance of the debt".

On 31 August 2026 the creditor and the receiver filed a response signed by attorney Victor Fisher. It said that the component "was cancelled in the note file following the decision of 21/10/25, given following the debtor's application for an extension and an update of the date of service of the warning", and then: "It is clarified that the ledger submitted in the previous application, which included the stage B fee component, resulted from a technical gap in updating the bank's systems only." It added: "For the avoidance of doubt, as of this date, and until a decision on the application to be filed as aforesaid, there is no basis for the stage B fee component in the debt, and therefore an updated ledger is submitted in which the stage B fee component has been cancelled."

According to the vehicle owner, the ledger line is not an old entry left behind: it bears a registration date and a value date of 22 July 2026 and a 2026 reference number. On 21 October 2026 the vehicle owner filed a complaint against attorney Victor Fisher with the Israel Bar Ethics Committee, Central District, and the fee is one of its grounds. About the first complaint.

The second affidavit and the ID number

On 21 October 2026 attorney Victor Fisher, as receiver, asked to approve the sale of the vehicle to a buyer named Mordechai. Paragraph 8 of the application reads: "In light of the above, it is requested to approve the sale of the vehicle to Mr. Mordechai [...] ID [...] free of any lien, attachment or third-party right whatsoever." According to the Population Registry response obtained by the vehicle owner, the ID number written in the application belongs to Mordechai's daughter. We do not publish the number or her name.

The application was accompanied by an affidavit of attorney Victor Fisher in the same wording, word for word: "I hereby confirm that all the details set out in the attached report have been checked and, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, are correct." Again, another attorney from his office certified that he had warned him, and the certification is dated 21/10/26.

On 28 October 2026 the registrar approved the sale. On the same day the vehicle owner filed an urgent application to cancel the decision, which states: "The debtor does not agree to lend a hand to such a move, and certainly not to its legitimisation by means of a judicial order." According to him, Mordechai is registered with the Tax Authority as a dealer in used vehicles, and the vehicle was to be registered in the name of a third party, a move that "may serve, allegedly, to circumvent the Tax Authority's rules".

The signature on the proof of delivery

The sale application included a proof of delivery dated 4 October 2026 for an invitation to the auction. The form is marked "I delivered the document into his hands", and a signature appears in the field "signature of the recipient".

Proof of delivery of 4.10.2026, invitation to the auction: delivered into his hands, and the signature in the recipient's signature field
The proof of delivery of 4 October 2026 attached to the receiver's sale application (Hebrew original). Four strips were cut from the same page and placed one above the other; the addressee's name, ID number and address and the process server's details are not shown. The red frame around the signature was added for emphasis. The vehicle owner declares that this is not his signature. Click the image to open it in full size.

In the affidavit attached to his urgent application, the vehicle owner declared: "The signature appearing in the field 'signature of the recipient' on the proof of delivery of 4.10.2026, attached to the receiver's application to approve the sale, is not my signature. I did not sign this proof of delivery." He also declared that on that morning he received a phone call in which he was asked whether this was his address, and that no one came to him.

The second explanation: "an error of the clerk"

On 29 October 2026 the registrar ruled: "The receiver shall clarify whether the ID number provided in the application to approve the sale is the ID number of Mr. [...]. The receiver shall support his application with a copy of the buyer's ID card."

On 2 November 2026 attorney Victor Fisher replied: "The receiver respectfully confirms and clarifies that an error did indeed occur in the wording of the application to approve the sale, as the identity of the buyer/bidder who won the auction in question is Mr. Mordechai [...] (and whereas, due to an error of the clerk handling the matter, his details were mixed up with the details of his daughter [...], whose details were added as an additional bidder on the same bid on the Bidspirit website". He asked that the decision be corrected so that the vehicle is registered in Mordechai's name. According to the vehicle owner, he then filed a further complaint against attorney Victor Fisher with the Ethics Committee.

Decisions that do not support the vehicle owner

In her decision of 29 October 2026 the registrar refused to stay the proceedings. She held: "The debtor's claims regarding irregularities in the proofs of delivery were not properly substantiated. The debtor did not lay a foundation showing that the proofs of delivery contained defects capable of leading to the cancellation of the sale approval. Nor was a foundation laid that the deliveries were not made to him. There is a presumption of delivery that has not been rebutted." She also held that the sale was approved after the redemption period had passed and that the vehicle owner had not asked to redeem the vehicle.

In her decision of 16 August 2026 the registrar held that the duty to deposit the vehicle does not depend on the accounting review of the balance. The response of 31 August 2026 stated that removing the component is "no waiver of the creditor's right to the said fee", and on the same day an application to award it again was filed in the note file.

What this article does not determine

This article presents documents from enforcement file 515509-06-24 and the claims of the vehicle owner, who is a party to the proceedings. It does not find that attorney Victor Fisher or anyone at his office made a false statement, that the signature was forged or who signed it, or that any ethical rule or law was breached. The proceedings are pending, and the vehicle owner's complaints to the Ethics Committee have not been decided. If attorney Victor Fisher responds, his response will be published here. Quotations from which identifying details were removed are marked [...]. All quotations are translated from the Hebrew originals.

The video on this case: Two affidavits, on YouTube (in Hebrew).

Sources