Mileage fraud – here is a lawsuit that can help against the seller

Below you can review a lawsuit filed with the Magistrate's Court, which deals with the sale of a vehicle after falsifying the mileage.

Recently, my office has been filing more and more lawsuits for Mileage fraud מכיוון שהתופעה הפכה להיות בגדר "מכת מדינה".

Car dealers (and sometimes private individuals) are willing to do anything to sell vehicles at a higher price, in order to make as much money as possible, and to that end they are even willing to commit criminal offenses, and risk having their mileage fraud discovered and prosecuted. Financial claim In the goal Cancel the transaction to purchase a used car, and pay compensation to the injured party.

One reason why car dealers are willing to take the risk is that they know that not everyone they have worked for will actually file a claim, because handling a claim is a long process (usually more than a year), and requires payment. Lawyers' fees In amounts that are not negligible, and not everyone is interested in devoting so much time to this matter or paying a high fee.

However, it is important to know that if you have indeed encountered mileage fraud, and you have data indicating that mileage fraud was indeed committed, the chances of the lawsuit being successful are good, and in a very large number of cases, and even most of them, the court will order the cancellation of the transaction.

Additionally, in cases of this type, the court also orders financial compensation and reimbursement of legal expenses (at least partial reimbursement).

If you have been harmed by falsifying the mileage of a vehicle for which you paid over 100,000 shekels, contact our office for full legal support from filing the lawsuit to issuing a verdict. Our office has extensive experience in this field and many successes (see court rulings on the website).

Example of a claim for mileage fraud

Regarding:

The plaintiff: שם התובע ושם משפחה, ת"ז: _________
Plaintiff's place of residence ________; Tel: _____ 
ע"י ב"כ עוה"ד אדי בליטשטיין (מ.ר. 60023)
13 Katznelson St., Ashkelon (Beit Yamin, Office 215) 
Tel: 03-6427876; Fax: 077-4704697

N G D

Defendant: שם הנתבע ושם משפחה, ת"ז: ________________
The defendant's address 

Claim

Essence of the claim: Property damage – vehicle. 
Requested remedies: Transaction cancellation, refund, financial compensation. Claim amount: 280,000 NIS. 
amount Court fee: 7000 ש"ח (3500 ש"ח במועד זה לפי תקנה 6(א) ופרט 1 לתקנות בתי המשפט (אגרות), תשס"ז -2007).
The existence of an additional procedure: There is no further proceeding between the plaintiff and the defendant dealing with the matters detailed in this lawsuit.

Summons

Since the plaintiff has filed this lawsuit against you, you are welcome to file Statement of defense within sixty days From the date this invitation was presented to you.

Please note, if you do not submit Defense אזי לפי תקנה 130 לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, התשע"ט-2018, תהיה לתובע הזכות לקבל A verdict not before you.

The emphasis in the statement of claim is not in the original unless otherwise noted.

A concise description of the litigants

1. The plaintiff is a private individual who purchased a second-hand vehicle from the defendant for a total of NIS 212,000.
2. The defendant is a car dealer, owner of a used car lot on ________ Street, ______. The name of the business is ______.

The reliefs requested in brief

• The Honorable Court is hereby requested to grant the plaintiff the following reliefs:
• An order ordering the cancellation of the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the return to the plaintiff of the sum of 212,000 NIS plus interest in shekels from the date of payment to the defendant (August 25, 2026) until the date on which the defendant actually pays the plaintiff the funds.
• The defendant was ordered to pay financial compensation in the amount of 20,000 shekels for the mental anguish caused to the plaintiff.
• The defendant was ordered to pay financial compensation in the amount of 18.5 thousand shekels for breach of contract between the parties.
• חיובו של הנתבע בגין החזר שכר טרחת עורך דין בו נשא התובע, בסך 29,500 ₪ (כולל מע"מ), בתוספת ריבית שקלית מיום 1.9.2026 ועד למועד התשלום הכספים על ידי הנתבע בפועל.
• Any other and/or additional relief that the Honorable Court deems appropriate.

Summary of the facts necessary to establish the cause of action and when it arose

• At the end of August 2026, the plaintiff was interested in purchasing a second-hand vehicle. The plaintiff was exposed to an advertisement published by the defendant and/or someone on his behalf on the Internet for a Jeep Rubicon and Wrangler.
• התובע הגיע לבית העסק של הנתבע ב_______ ובחן את הרכב. במעמד הרכישה מד האוץ של הרכב הציג 105105 אלף ק"מ בלבד.
• The plaintiff purchased the vehicle from the defendant on August 25, 2026, and paid 212 thousand shekels for it.
• ברישיון הרכב שהופק על שמו של התובע נרשם כי במבחן הרישוי האחרון שהתקיים ביום 29.6.2026 מד האוץ הראה שהרכב גמע 102,011 ק"מ.
• A short time later, the plaintiff went to an authorized garage and produced the vehicle's maintenance history.
• התובע נדהם לגלות כי כבר בתאריך 26.5.2026 נרשם בהיסטוריית הטיפולים של הרכב שהוא גמע 182,454 ק"מ. כלומר, עוד לפני ביצוע מבחן הרישוי, חודש לאחר הביקור האחרון במוסך, תועד שהרכב גמע כ-80 אלף ק"מ יותר משהוצג לתובע בפועל במעמד הרכישה.
• From the above, it clearly appears that the vehicle's mileage was illegally reduced, all with the aim of deceiving the plaintiff and making him think he was buying a vehicle in better condition.
• On August 31, 2026, the plaintiff contacted the defendant and demanded the cancellation of the transaction. The defendant agreed to return only 4,000 shekels, but did not agree to cancel the transaction.
• Hence the lawsuit.

The facts that give the court jurisdiction

1. לבית המשפט הנכבד הסמכות העניינית והמקומית לדון בתביעה זו לאור סכום התביעה ומקום מגוריו ועסקו של הנתבע, בהתאם לתקנה 7(א) תקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, תשע"ט – 2018.

Details of the allegations

1. At the end of August 2026, the plaintiff was interested in purchasing a second-hand vehicle. The plaintiff was exposed to an advertisement published by the defendant and/or someone on his behalf on the Internet for a Jeep Rubicon and Wrangler. After the vehicle was sold, the defendant and/or someone on his behalf deleted the advertisement and the plaintiff does not have a copy of it.
2. Following the advertisement, on August 25, 2026, the plaintiff contacted the defendant by telephone and expressed interest in the vehicle. This was followed by WhatsApp correspondence regarding the vehicle, in which the defendant sent the plaintiff several impressive photos of the vehicle.

Appendix 1: WhatsApp correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant and the photos of the vehicle sent on WhatsApp.

1. עוד באותו היום, התובע הגיע לבית העסק של הנתבע ב_______ ובחן את הרכב. במעמד הרכישה מד האוץ של הרכב הציג 105105 אלף ק"מ.
2. The plaintiff purchased the vehicle that day and paid 212,000 shekels for it.

Appendix 2: Confirmation of a bank transfer in the amount of 212 thousand shekels, confirmation of transfer of ownership and vehicle license in the plaintiff's name.

1. ברישיון הרכב שהופק על שמו של התובע נרשם כי במבחן הרישוי האחרון שהתקיים ביום 29.6.2026 (כחודשיים בלבד לפני ביצוע הרכישה) מד האוץ הראה שהרכב גמע 102,011 ק"מ.
2. Very shortly after purchasing the vehicle, the plaintiff went to an authorized garage and obtained the vehicle's maintenance history.
3. התובע נדהם לגלות כי כבר בתאריך 26.5.2026 נרשם בהיסטוריית הטיפולים של הרכב שהוא גמע 182,454 ק"מ. כלומר, עוד לפני ביצוע מבחן הרישוי, חודש לאחר הביקור האחרון במוסך, תועד שהרכב גמע כ-80 אלף ק"מ יותר משהוצג לתובע בפועל במעמד הרכישה.
4. מבדיקה נוספת התברר כי במעמד בדיקת הרישוי השנתית הקודמת של הרכב, בתאריך 23.7.2025, תועד שהרכב כבר גמע בפועל 153,199 ק"מ.

Appendix 3: היסטוריית הטיפולים של הרכב שרכש התובע ומסמך המציג את מספר הק"מ במבחן הרישוי השנתי שהתקיים ביום 23.7.2025.

• From the above, it clearly appears that the vehicle's mileage was illegally reduced, all with the aim of deceiving the plaintiff and making him think he was buying a vehicle in better condition.
• On August 31, 2026, the plaintiff contacted the defendant on WhatsApp and demanded the cancellation of the transaction. The plaintiff wrote as follows:

" peace,

After purchasing the vehicle, I discovered that there was a serious discrepancy in the vehicle's mileage.

הרכב נמכר לי כאשר מד האוץ הציג כ־105,000 ק"מ, בעוד שבידי תיעוד רשמי מהיסטוריית הטיפולים של הרכב המראה כי הרכב כבר הגיע בעבר לכ־182,000 ק"מ.

This is a substantial gap of tens of thousands of kilometers and a figure that was fundamental to my decision to purchase the vehicle and the price I paid for it.

In light of this, I demand that the transaction be canceled, the vehicle returned, and the full amount paid by me be refunded, without any offset.

All documentation and references are in my possession.

אני מבקש להסדיר את ביטול העסקה והחזרת הכסף באופן מיידי וללא צורך בהליכים משפטיים. ככל שלא נגיע להסדרה, אפעל למימוש מלוא זכויותיי באמצעים המשפטיים העומדים לרשותי."

• The defendant agreed to return only 4,000 shekels. As can be seen in the WhatsApp correspondence that was attached to the lawsuit, the defendant wrote as follows:

" Good morning, I slept in yesterday.

Listen, my brother, I have a profit of 8,000 NIS on the car. I will give you 4,000 NIS and next year you give it back to me. We will exchange it for another one or I will buy it from you because such a car is not available today. A special Jeep. You will enjoy it. If I don't have the other one with 66,000 kilometers, we will exchange it.

יש לך דש מאבא גם"

• The defendant's offer is unacceptable to the plaintiff and the plaintiff demands the cancellation of the transaction and the return of the full payment paid to the defendant.
• מכיוון שהנתבע סירב לבטל את העסקה, התובע נאלץ לשכור את שירותיו של בא כוחו, לו הוא שילם 25 אלף שקלים בתוספת מע"מ (29,500 ₪ כולל מע"מ). התובע סבור כי בנסיבות העניין הוא זכאי להחזר מלא בגין שכר הטרחה שהוא נאלץ לשלם.

Appendix 4: A tax invoice evidencing payment of the fee.

• In addition, the plaintiff suffered great emotional distress. He purchased an impressive and prestigious vehicle with the aim of enjoying it. In practice, it turned out that he purchased a pig in a poke, which does not match what was presented to him, and now he is forced to waste time to deal with the defendant's failure. The plaintiff cannot even reduce his damages and purchase a replacement vehicle that he can enjoy, since he paid the defendant a total of 212 thousand shekels. This is a considerable amount, to say the least. The plaintiff believes that for the great emotional distress he suffered, he is entitled to financial compensation of 20 thousand shekels.
• The defendant's conduct also constitutes a breach of agreement between the parties. The plaintiff believes that for breach of agreement between the parties he is entitled to financial compensation in the amount of 18.5 thousand shekels.

The defendant is a car dealer – the plaintiff was not provided with a due disclosure form.

• חוק מכירת רכב משומש (זכאות למידע וגילוי נאות), תשס"ח-2008 מגדיר "עוסק ברכב" כך:

""עוסק ברכב" – עוסק כהגדרתו בחוק הגנת הצרכן, התשמ"א-1981, שעיסוקו מכירת רכב משומש;"

• A consumer protection law practitioner is defined as follows:

""עוסק" – Anyone who sells property or provides a service through a business, including a manufacturer;"

• The defendant is a car dealer registered in the car dealer database on the Ministry of Transportation website. The defendant had a business selling used cars in __________ under the name ________.

Appendix 5: A screenshot from the Ministry of Transportation website indicating that the defendant is a car dealer and a photograph of the defendant at the entrance to his business.

• Therefore, the defendant should have provided the plaintiff with a disclosure form. Not only was the disclosure form not provided to the plaintiff, but The plaintiff was not required to sign any form and was not given a copy of any form.
• Failure to submit a proper disclosure form was recognized in the case law as a very serious defect in the provisions of the law. ראו לדוגמה במסגרת תאד"מ 23565-09-23 קורל קרן פרנקו נ' ש. שלמה מכירת רכב (2000) בע"מ (Published in Nevo, 20.7.2025):

" סעיף 4 (b) לחוק מכירת רכב משומש (זכאות למידע וגילוי נאות), תשס"ח–2008, מקים חובת גילוי נאות המוטלת על הנתבעת. בהתאם לכך, על הנתבעת בתור מוכרת רכבים שזה עיסוקה, היה למסור בידי הנתבעת טופס גילוי מפורט וחתום לפני החתימה על החוזה.

This form is required to detail, among other things, the identity and a number The owner The vehicle's previous history; damage caused to the vehicle; Kilometers', and more. Failure to comply with this obligation constitutes a serious violation of the provisions of the law.

…

Failure to provide such information may be considered a fundamental breach of its nature. In section 6 לחוק החוזים (תרופות בשל הפרת חוזה), תשל"א- 1970 שתוצאתה על פי חוק זה, The buyer's right to recover the money he paid to the seller passes to the vehicle, and sometimes גם זכותו לפיצויים הנובעים מהפרה שכזו."

• The ruling also determined that submitting a due disclosure form is Grounds in themselves for a demand to cancel a transaction:

" … לאחר שהגעתי למסקנה כי הנתבע לא מילא אחר חובת הגילוי המוטלת עליו, הטעה את התובע, ולא המציא לתובע טופס "גילוי נאות" כנדרש, ולכן התובע רשאי היה לדרוש לבטל את העסקה גם במהלך חודש יוני 2024, כחצי שנה לאחר חתימת העסקה:

…

The number of kilometers traveled by a used vehicle, הוא מידע מהותי בעסקת מכירה על ידי עוסק ברכב, ועל כן המחוקק מצא לכלול נתון זה ברשימת פריטי המידע שמוכר רכב משומש חייב בגילויים ואף הדגיש שיש למסור נתון זה "במדויק".

…

Interim Summary In light of all the above, the transaction should be ordered to be canceled..

…

I order the cancellation of the vehicle purchase transaction concluded between the parties on 08.12.22. "

ראו: ת"א 61785-07-23 Ali Saad v. Adam Atallah (Published in Nevo, 15.4.2025).

• ראו גם פסיקת בית המשפט המחוזי במסגרת רת"ק 55719-02-24 Vadim Roitberg v. Noam Avrahami (Published in Nevo, 14.4.2024) which confirmed the ruling of the Small Claims Court, determined that It is sufficient to submit a disclosure form. כטעם בפני עצמו For the purpose of canceling the transaction.

The legal position regarding the issue of falsification/reduction of the accelerometer

• The ruling regarding mileage falsification states that this is also a ground that stands alone, allowing the plaintiff to cancel the transaction, and demand the full payment he made for the vehicle.
• ראו לדוגמה תא"מ 2891-11-19 Sami Gilkarov v. Raz Mendelsohn (Published in Nevo, January 26, 2022):

" It is not disputed that a reasonable purchaser can rely on the speedometer registration as a binding registration. Altering the speedometer registration is a criminal offense, and as a general rule, a reasonable purchaser should not expect the seller to perform such an action.

It should also be noted that there is no doubt that the vehicle's mileage is an important and central consideration in the considerations of a reasonable buyer when considering purchasing the vehicle..

…

Therefore, the gap between the speedometer's odometer reading and the actual odometer reading reveals a discrepancy, depending on To Article 11 לחוק המכר, שכן לכל הפחות עסקינן ב"נכס שאינו מתאים מבחינה אחרת למה שהוסכם בין הצדדים" (ס"ק (5)).

And more, We are interested in a hidden discrepancy.Since the plaintiff immediately notified the defendant of the non-compliance, accordingly To Article 15 The Law of Sale, He may rely on this inconsistency and cancel the agreement between them.. "

• This ruling also determined that the restitution should be full (in this case, a restitution of 212,000 NIS):

"נוכח האמור, התובע רשאי לבטל את ההסכם בינו לבין הנתבע, and to be entitled to a refund of the contractual consideration he paid under it."

• דוגמה נוספת ניתן למצוא במסגרת ת"א 61785-07-23 Ali Saad v. Adam Atallah (Published in Nevo, April 15, 2025), where it is stated, among other things, as follows:

"The number of kilometers a used vehicle has traveled is material information in a sales transaction by a car dealer., ועל כן המחוקק מצא לכלול נתון זה ברשימת פריטי המידע שמוכר רכב משומש חייב בגילויים ואף הדגיש שיש למסור נתון זה "Accurately".

…

As stated in our case, the information regarding the number of kilometers the vehicle has traveled is information that the legislator also found to be material and therefore required the vehicle dealer to provide complete and accurate details regarding it in the due disclosure form.

…

Neither is this true, even if the defendant gave the plaintiff the vehicle license, this does not obviate the need to submit a due disclosure form as determined by the legislature., especially when even in the statement itself the defendant did not record any number of kilometers that the vehicle traveled. This and most importantly, The legislator did not believe that the mileage details listed on the vehicle license were sufficient to meet the due disclosure requirement, and the law stipulated that this information should have appeared explicitly and on a separate form – a due disclosure form.."

The damages suffered by the plaintiff

• The defendant defrauded the plaintiff and made him pay 212 thousand shekels for the vehicle. למען הסר ספק, אילו היה יודע התובע שהרכב גמע כ-180 אלף ק"מ לפחת, כפי שמצוין בהיסטוריית הטיפולים של הרכב, המצורפת לעיל, הוא כלל לא היה שוקל להתקשר לנתבע ו/או להגיע למגרש המכוניות של הנתבע ב______ ממושב ________ (כ-80 ק"מ לכל כיוון) ו/או לרכוש את הרכב, גם לא במחיר נמוך יותר.
• The plaintiff is required to pay attorney fees in the amount of 29,500 NIS. So far, the plaintiff has been required to pay a court fee in the amount of 3,500 NIS.
• The plaintiff estimates the mental anguish he suffered at 20,000 shekels.
• The plaintiff believes that he is entitled to financial compensation for the defendant's breach of the agreement in the amount of 18.5 thousand shekels.

In conclusion

• In light of all of the above, the Honorable Court is hereby requested to summon the defendant to a hearing before it and to rule as follows:
• the remedies detailed in this statement of claim.
• לחייב את הנתבע בתשלום הוצאות משפט ושכר טרחת עו"ד בתוספת מע"מ (כמפורט לעיל).
• To grant any other relief that the Honorable Court deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

_______________
עו"ד אדי בליטשטיין
ב"כ התובע