The Honorable Judge Edna Arbel in Crim. Crim. 1323/13 Rach Hassan v. MI (published in Nevo, 2013, hereinafter: the Hassan case, in paragraph 11 of her judgment), noted that "there is no identity between the penalty range and the accepted range of punishment", since the customary range of punishment expresses the customary sentencing policy, and as stated, this took into account only some of the considerations affecting the design of the compound (see also in this matter Crim. Appeal 4115/08 Avner Gilad v. State of Israel (Published in Nevo, 2011), paragraph 37 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge, later President Asher Grunis.
In the proposed Penal Law (Amendment No. 128) (Structuring Judicial Discretion in Punishment), 5776-2016 (Government Bill, 1052 (2016, hereinafter: the Proposed Law to Amend the Structure of Discretion), it is proposed to amendSection A1 , inter alia, with regard to the accepted sentencing policy. According to the explanatory notes, since the amendment to the law in this regard, experience has accumulated that has brought to light several problems and difficulties, one of which is the inequality of punishment, even after Amendment 113. Therefore, it is proposed to establish an advisory committee on punishment matters, whose role will be to collect information and conduct studies on the sentencing policy, and its findings will be used by the court when it comes to determining the customary sentencing policy, for the purpose of determining the appropriate punishment (explanatory notes to the bill, at p. 1078). From the above, it emerges that the issue of customary punishment must be addressed.
Counsel for the accuser was of the opinion that if it were not for the special circumstances of the case, there would have been room to impose a fine of hundreds of thousands of shekels on the defendants. I am of the opinion that if it were not for the plea bargain, the defendants would have been required to pay a fine of at least 1.5 million shekels, which would be in proportion to the scope of the offenses committed. However, it is difficult to draw an inference from similar cases, since in our case, the defendants before me did not profit for themselves from the offenses, when Avi Motola, who was an officer of both the defendants and Africa Israel Industries, wanted to influence its reports.