According to him, the interest of rehabilitation should be preferred, especially when the officers and employees who committed the offenses attributed to the companies are no longer in the companies, and they have implemented norms of compliance with the law. Counsel for the defendants emphasized that this is a company that still supports hundreds of employees, when the coronavirus crisis added additional economic uncertainty.
Counsel for the defendants also asks that the passage of time since the offenses were committed.
Counsel for the parties asked the court to honor the plea bargain.
Discussion and Decision
I will open the discussion on determining the punishment area, taking into account the severity of the offense and the circumstances of its commission. In the framework of these circumstances, I will discuss the fact that these are defendants who are limited liability companies. So I will refer to the exceptional circumstances of rehabilitation in this case, and in this context, to corporate rehabilitation as a central consideration when it comes to defendants who are members. Finally, I will discuss the rulings relating to a plea bargain and sentence the defendants.
- Sentencing according to Section A1 of Chapter F of the Penal Law (Structuring Judicial Discretion in Sentencing)
4.1. The manner of sentencing – general
Section A1 of Chapter F of the Penal Law, 5737-1977 (hereinafter: Section A1 and the Penal Law, respectively), deals with the structuring of judicial discretion in punishment. This section was added to the Penal Law in the framework of Amendment 113 to the Penal Law (S.H. 5772 2330, dated January 10, 2012, hereinafter: Amendment 113). The amendment was based on the conclusions of the Committee on Ways of Constructing Judicial Discretion in Sentencing – Report (1997), headed by Justice (retired) A. Goldberg (hereinafter: the Goldberg Commission Report). Section 40A of the law sets out the purpose of the amendment, which is: "to determine the principles and considerations guiding the punishment, the weight to be given to them, and the relationship between them, so that the court will determine the appropriate punishment for the defendant in the circumstances of the offense." By virtue of the amendment (sections 40a-401 of the Penal Law), the court must first determine the appropriate punishment range for the offense in its circumstances, and only then, after taking into account the personal circumstances of the defendant, must the court sentence him within the penalty range (except in exceptional cases in which it is possible to deviate from this range). The importance of the amendment lies in the distinction that must be made between the guilt and the appropriate retribution for the offense per se (objective considerations) and individual considerations relating to the defendant (for an analysis of the law and its objectives, see: The Penal Law (Amendment No. 92) (Structuring the Judicial Discretion in Punishment), 5766-2006, Government Bill 241; Ruth Kannai, "The Structure of the Judge's Discretion in Determining the Sentence in the Wake of the Goldberg Commission Report," 15 Law Studies (1999) 147 (hereinafter: Kenai, The Construction of Judgment), as well as Sigal Kogut, Efrat Hakak and Itamar Galfish, "Who is Afraid of the Construction of Judicial Discretion in Punishment? On the Court of Appeals and Amendment 113" in: Justice Law? Criminal Procedure in Israel – Failures and Challenges, 267 (edited by Alon Harel, from the series: Social and Cultural Law, edited by Assaf Lakhovsky, hereinafter: Kogut, Hakak and Gilfish, The Structure of Punishment and Justice Law?