The aforementioned case is concerned with the confiscation of $200,000 by the Judea & Samaria military commander, in accordance with articles 84 and 120 of the Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945, funds which where confiscated for belonging to an illegal organization. This case is the second ruling on this case by the military court.

In the first ruling Justice Dahan ruled that $30,000 of the sum would be returned to the petitioner, since the court accepted his claim that that he received part of the sum in good faith as repayment of an old debt.

This ruling was appealed to the military court of appeals.

During the appeal, an argument was made that the military court lacks the authority to rule on the legality of monies seized by force of articles 84 and 120 of the defense regulations. The argument was based on the source of authority and history of the founding of the military courts, and accordingly argued that as seizures are wholly an administrative decision the courts lack the authority to rule on seizures and confiscations, since the defense regulations do not grant such authority. This argument, however, was dismissed by the military court of appeals.

The court of appeals ruled that the entire sum was received from Hamas, and as to the question of the $30,000, the court of appeals ruled that the original ruling lacked the proper evidentiary basis to reach the conclusion that the $30,000 were indeed in good faith and for the repayment of a debt. In turn, the court of appeals remanded the case back to the military court for review.

In congruence with the court of appeals ruling, a new privileged hearing was held by Justice Dahan where the classified intelligence which led to the original confiscation was presented. In the new ruling Justice Dahan re-emphasized that article 23(a)(2) of the Law Prohibiting The Finance Of Terror  of 2005 is holding in this case. This article dictates that the burden of proof rests on the petitioner claiming that money which originated from a “terror” source was received in good faith and for consideration.

In turn, after analyzing the evidence presented to him, Justice Dahan ruled that the petitioner did not prove that the $30,000 were received in good faith and for consideration and, reversing his original ruling, ordered that the confiscation order remain in force with regard to the entire confiscated sum.”.