The Tribunal in this landmark case declined jurisdiction over the claims, concluding that the claimant's transaction did not constitute a protected "investment" under either the ICSID Convention or the Israel-Czech Republic Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The Award is a seminal decision on the doctrines of abuse of rights and 'treaty shopping', establishing that an investment must be made *bona fide* to receive treaty protection. The Respondent, the Czech Republic, raised a dispositive jurisdictional objection *ratione materiae*, arguing that the claimant’s acquisition of two Czech companies was a sham transaction. The claimant, Phoenix Action, Ltd., was an Israeli company established by Mr. Vladimír Beňo, a Czech national who had fled the Czech Republic amidst criminal investigations. Phoenix then acquired two Czech companies, Benet Praha and Benet Group, from Mr. Beňo’s wife and daughter. Crucially, this acquisition occurred well after the underlying disputes with Czech authorities—involving asset freezes and prolonged domestic litigation—had already materialized. The Respondent contended that the sole purpose of this corporate restructuring was to internationalize a pre-existing, purely domestic dispute to gain access to ICSID arbitration, an act it characterized as abusive treaty shopping. The Tribunal conducted a profound analysis of the definition of a protected investment. It synthesized and expanded upon existing jurisprudence, notably the *Salini* test, to formulate a six-part standard. To qualify for protection, an operation must involve: (1) a contribution of money or other assets; (2) a certain duration; (3) an element of risk; (4) an aim to develop economic activity in the host state; (5) compliance with the laws of the host state; and, critically, (6) be made *bona fide*. The Tribunal reasoned that the *bona fides* requirement is inherent in the object and purpose of the investment protection framework, which seeks to promote genuine foreign economic development, not to offer a forum for domestic claimants who restructure their assets post-dispute. Applying this framework, the Tribunal concluded that the transaction was an "abuse of the system" and a "*détournement de procédure*." The evidence overwhelmingly indicated a lack of good faith. First, the timing of the investment—made after the dispute had fully arisen—demonstrated an intent to purchase a claim, not to make a genuine investment. Second, there was a complete absence of economic purpose; the claimant presented no business plan, undertook no efforts to revive the inactive companies, and engaged in no economic activity. Third, the substance of the transaction revealed it was not at arm's length but an intra-family rearrangement of assets for a nominal price, which the claimant's counsel conceded. The Tribunal found the "unique goal of the 'investment' was to transform a pre-existing domestic dispute into an international dispute subject to ICSID arbitration." Based on this finding of an abuse of rights, the Tribunal determined that the transaction was not a protected investment and, therefore, it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Emphasizing the gravity of the claimant's conduct, the Tribunal adopted the "costs follow the event" principle, ordering the claimant to bear all costs of the arbitration and to pay the Respondent's full legal fees and expenses.