OCTOBER 18, 2026 15:13

Updated: OCTOBER 18, 2026 16:49

The Haifa District Court has directed seven individuals tied to two connected charities to personally return NIS 1.85 million following a ruling that a donation meant to aid children and teens with cancer was shifted to a separate group and spent beyond its intended scope.

Senior Judge Ron Sokol determined the officials violated their responsibilities through the transfer, filing inaccurate reports and neglecting proper accounting for the funds. His October 8 ruling also noted that significant amounts went unlawfully to the charities' key figure, attorney Galit Pauker Shemesh, in the form of salary and rent payments.

The decision, released by the Justice Ministry on Sunday, involves the groups Keren L'Chaim and Keren L'Chaim L'Yeladim V'Noar (for children and youth), both closed by court order in 2024.

All seven must repay the sum, with any one potentially liable for the full outstanding balance. Interest and inflation adjustments apply from April 2019. They must also cover NIS 20,000 in combined legal fees.

Donation meant to aid children facing cancer

The funds originated from the estate of Helen Hatab. Her estate administrator explained to the court that she had worked as a teacher and battled cancer herself, prompting the idea to allocate part of the estate toward supporting children and teens with the illness.

A family court approved the plan in March 2019. It aimed to deliver educational help during treatment, advice for those in recovery and support for equipment, medicines and care via the original Keren L'Chaim charity.

Yet the bank details provided for the transfer belonged to the newer group, Keren L'Chaim L'Yeladim V'Noar. The family court had not authorized moving the donation to another charity or altering its purpose.

The First International Bank of Israel initially declined the transfer upon spotting the mismatch between the approved recipient and the account. The charities then set up accounts at Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot, where the donation landed in the newer charity's account in April 2019.

Sokol further noted that a document sent to FIBI had been changed to swap the original charity's registration number for that of the newer organization.

Charity officials justify spending on hostel upgrades

The seven claimed the money supported valid charitable efforts, mainly renovations at Beit Keren, a hostel for at-risk girls in Hadera. Pauker Shemesh asserted that the estate administrator had consented to redirecting the funds, that she had shown proof of renovation costs and other outlays, and that her salary and rent payments were proper and authorized.

The remaining six maintained they had volunteered without personal gain and depended on Pauker Shemesh along with professional advisers for financial oversight.

The court dismissed these arguments. The approved cancer-support initiative could not be swapped for another charitable project absent proper clearance, Sokol ruled. He determined that shifting the donation and altering its aim sought to avoid oversight of the original charity and permit the officials to manage donations free of limits.

The officials stated that about NIS 1m. went toward the hostel yet failed to supply enough invoices, plans or other proof to confirm the spending. A promised expert review of the work's worth was never provided.

Sokol accepted that some renovation occurred. In setting the repayment figure, he subtracted NIS 41,621 for that work based on the amount listed in the charity's financial report.

Court requires return of salary and rent

Pauker Shemesh was separately directed to repay NIS 180,390 in salary and NIS 112,110 in rent, plus interest and inflation adjustments. Any amounts she returns will lower the total owed by the seven.

Sokol recognized that the officials had sincerely aimed to assist those in need and had done so over many years. Still, he found the money had also been applied improperly for personal gains, chiefly benefiting Pauker Shemesh, while the other officials' lack of supervision enabled this outcome.

"We cannot accept the respondents' claim that they are exempt from any duty merely because they acted as volunteers," Sokol wrote.

Assuming no one was diverting funds offered no replacement for verifying that donations served their stated purpose, he added.