purchased; why he went to Jerusalem, and whether he contacted the First Defendant whilst there. 48. The Claimant says that he expected to meet First Defendant in Jerusalem in person to hand over the dollars. Despite an arrangement made by mobile phone on one or more occasions to meet at a bank he failed to appear. The First Defendant states he was never in Israel at this time and produces his US passport to substantiate this. The passport shows no stamps for entry or exit to Israel at this period. As someone who is subject to UK immigration control his passport should also disclose exits from and entry to the United Kingdom. There is an entry stamp on the 19th January imposed by the Immigration Officer on duty at the Channel Tunnel immigration post but no corresponding exit stamp before that date. The position from the passports therefore is although the First Defendant might have been absent from the United Kingdom at the end of December or early January, it is highly unlikely that he was in Israel. He is emphatic that he was never supposed to meet the Claimant there to hand over dollars or otherwise and was never contacted by the Claimant whilst the Claimant was in Israel. 49. The Claimant has disclosed his mobile phone records for his phone 07973 144183 for the period for late December 2004 and January 2005. They do not show calls made to a telephone number connected to the First Defendant after the 23 rd December and before the 4th January. They do show use of the mobile phone whilst the Claimant was in Israel. When the Claimant was challenged about this in the witness box he suggested that he had made a mistake and was using a different Pay as You Go mobile phone when calling the First Defendant in Israel. It seems unlikely that he had not realised this before now. In the light of the evidence of the mobile phone records and those of the First Defendant’s passport I reject the Claimant’s account as to communication with the First Defendant in Israel between the 26 th December 2004 and 4th January 2005. This gives further serious grounds for caution in accepting the unsupported evidence of the Claimant on the disputed issues in the case. As with the evidence of Mr. Hochauser, there is a real risk that the Claimant has embellished his account to support it with unreliable testimony. 50. The Claimant returned to the UK on the 4th January 2005, empty handed and unable to participate in the contemplated property transaction. There then followed a lengthy period until November 2005 when the Claimant claims he was chasing for the return of his monies, and the First Defendant supported by the Second Defendant and the Third Defendant say the Claimant was doing no such thing. The First Defendant states that any mention of financial matters by the Claimant was confined to his pursuit of the loan that he wanted from the First Defendant and not repayment of the money he had donated to the charity. There were communications between them whilst they were both in Israel but this related to the loan discussions and not repayment of the December sums. The Claimant attended dinners of the Satmar movement in North London, but he was not asked to make any further donation in 2005 or after. 51. There are no documents in existence during this period from which the court can draw any independent conclusions. The Defendants submit that this is significant as if the Claimant had been denied repayment of the currency transaction and loan as he claimed he is likely to have been justifiably angry and this would have led to a documentary statement of his claim much earlier than was the case.