Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Avargil et al. on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Avargil et al. v. Yaakov et al.

Court
MC Nof HaGalil-Nazareth
Jurisdiction
Israel
Decided
2026-10-08
AI tool
Unidentified
Outcome
Report Struck; Adverse Costs Order
Monetary penalty
2500 ILS

What was hallucinated

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. || 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. || 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. || 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. || 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.

Sanction teardown · MC Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel · 2026-10-08

Avargil et al. v. Yaakov et al.

What happened

In MC Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Report Struck; Adverse Costs Order (monetary penalty: 2500 ILS.)

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3278/Avaragl_v._Yaakov_Israel.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3278/Avaragl_v._Yaakov_Israel.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template