Criminal Case (Petah Tikva) 22481-04-17 State of Israel v. Al-Jamal Moving Ltd.

Attendees:

Counsel for the accuser – Adv. Assaf Tomer, Adv. Yiftach Landau

Defendant 8 and Attorney General – Adv. Slava Rudenko

Counsel for Defendant 9 – Adv. Aya Shrik

Counsel for Defendants 20 and 21 – Adv. Dan Tsafrir

Defendant 2 and 23 and Attorney General – Adv. Ohad Maguri

Verdict

In accordance with Section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Law [Consolidated Version], 5742-1982, I announce at the beginning of the judgment that I have decided to acquit defendants 20-23 of what is attributed to them in the indictment.

Background

1. An indictment was filed against 24 defendants in criminal case 22481-04-17 (hereinafter: the main case), accusing them of involvement, each according to his part, in the commission of offenses of systematically dumping waste and construction waste and burying it in a large pit in violation of the law.
2. Two additional files were consolidated to this file – criminal case 64921-05-16 and  criminal file 64963-05-16 (hereinafter: the consolidated files), which deal with the same umbrella and in similar circumstances in a manner that justified the conduct of the proceedings in the consolidated case, all as will be detailed below.

The main case - the facts described in the indictment

3. The indictment attributes a long list of offenses, which were not attributed to all of the defendants, but rather according to the degree of involvement of any of them in the events. These are: violation or non-fulfillment of conditions in a business license, an offense under  sections 4, 7 and 14 of the Business Licensing Law, 5728-1968.  Illegal operation of a waste disposal site (including failure to take measures and without the necessary infrastructure, offenses under Regulations 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 12 of the Regulations  for the Prevention of Hazards (Prevention of Unreasonable Air Pollution and Odor from Waste Disposal Sites), 5750-1990.  Operating a business without a business license (landfill, transportation and shredding), an offense under Sections 4 and 14 of the Business Licensing Law, 5728-1968 in relation to items 5.1b, 1c and 5.1d in the addendum to the Business Licensing Order (Businesses Requiring a Licensing), 5773-2013.  Failure to pay the landfill levy, an offense under sections 13(a)(6) and 11d of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984 (thousands of offenses).  Causing unreasonable air pollution, offenses under  sections 63(a)(1), 63(e) and 3(a) of the Clean Air Law, 5768-2008 together with Regulation 2 of the Regulations  for the Prevention of Hazards (Prevention of Unreasonable Air and Odor Pollution from Waste Disposal Sites), 5760-1990.  Disposal of construction waste, lumpy waste and public domain dirt, offenses under  sections 2, 4 and 13(c)(1a)(a) of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984 together with section 29 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977 (thousands of offenses).  Waste disposal to an unauthorized site, an offense under  Section 13(b)(4a) and 7(d) of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, together with Section 29 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977 (thousands of offenses).   Pollution of a water source, offenses under  sections 20b(b) and 2021 of the Water Law, 5719-1959 together with section 29 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977 (thousands of offenses).  Breach of liability of an officer of a corporation, an offense under Section 15 of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984 (thousands of offenses).  Breach of Liability of an Officer of a Corporation, Offense under Section 64 of the Clean Air Law, 5728-2008 (Thousands of Offenses) and Breach of Officer's Responsibility, Offenses under Section 2022 of the Water Law, 5719-1959 (Thousands of Offenses).
4. In accordance with the facts of the indictment, this activity of the defendants together is liable to cause serious environmental hazards, including air pollution, the risk of pollution of water sources, and to provide an unfair commercial advantage to businesses operating lawfully.
5. As an appendix to the indictment, the accuser attached a table that includes dozens of incidents of the consequences of waste at the site, as well as 2,585 different additional opportunities (as detailed in Appendices A and B), which are an integral part of it. According to the accused, the defendants' activities lasted at least two and a half years, with a cumulative scope of at least 175,270 cubic meters.  The website, which was operated illegally, without the appropriate infrastructure required by law, yielded an economic profit of NIS 1,909,000 for defendants 7 to 9, between the months of March 2015 and March 2016 alone.
6. Copied from the indictment described in the indictment, M.P.A.T. 1965 (1987) in a tax appeal (hereinafter Defendant 1 or M.P.A.T.) is a private company legally registered in Israel that owns a dry waste transit station in the settlement of Yarchav that operates according to a business license. On November 12, 2013, the business license was conditional on the conditions of the Ministry of Environmental Protection.
7. On all relevant dates, Shmuel Valenci (hereinafter: Defendant 2 or Shmueli Valenci) was the owner and officer of Defendant 1 and of the transit station. Dror Barnitzky (hereinafter: Defendant 4 or Dror Barnitzky) was the CEO of Defendant 1.  Yaniv Shlomo Ezra (hereinafter: Defendant 5 or Yaniv Shlomo Ezra) was the CFO and Personnel of Defendant 1.  Benny Cohen (hereinafter: Defendant 6 or Benny Cohen) was one of the managers of Defendant 1 and served as Operations Manager.  Al Jamal Moving (hereinafter: Defendant 7 or Al Jamal Moving) was a private company engaged in transportation and moving.
8. On October 15, 2015, Al-Jamal, through Ibrahim Al-Jamal (hereinafter: Defendant 8 or Ibrahim), signed an agreement with M.P.A.T., through Yedidya Avitov (hereinafter: Defendant 3 or Yedidya Avitov) and Dror Barnitzky, for the operation of a transit station, including reception, recycling, waste treatment, transportation and landfilling, and maintenance.
9. Ibrahim al-Jamal is the manager and owner of Al-Jamal Transports, who himself or under his instructions and under his supervision committed the offenses in the indictment. Talaat Jamal (hereinafter: Defendant 10 or Talaat) worked as a weighler at the crossing station.  Liwa Natour (hereinafter: Defendant 11 or Liwa) worked for Al-Jamal Transports as a transit station manager and as a driver.  Lokman Salameh (hereinafter: Defendant 12 or Salameh) worked as a driver for Al Jamal Transports, as did Defendants 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 24.
10. In addition, Izzat Jamal (hereinafter: Defendant 9 or 'Azat) worked for Al Jamal Transports as a truck driver and drove some of the shovels with which waste was pushed and dumped into the pit. Similarly, Izzat's house borders the area and the pit to the west, and from there trucks also entered the area to dispose of waste.  In addition, there were various trucks registered in the name of El Jamal, Ibrahim Al Jamal Transports and owned by Gaza.
11. H. Waste Absorption Recycling Industries in a Tax Appeal (hereinafter: Defendant 20 or K.H. Industries) is a company legally registered in Israel, which on all the relevant dates of this indictment, operated an authorized landfill site for dry waste, located in Plot 90 and bordering the area of the pit as it was defined.
12. Abd al-Karim Khadija (hereinafter Defendant 21 or Khadija) is a shareholder and manager of the defendant K.H. Industries.
13. On all the dates relevant to this indictment, the area in Block 7824 was in the public domain, in the possession of, inter alia, defendants 20 to 23, adjacent to the home of defendants 8, 9, 22 and 23.
14. On July 30, 2000, the area was leased to the "Khadija Abd al-Karim Earthworks" company, which is owned by defendant Abd al-Karim for the purpose of mining land, by defendants Mu'tasem Qadi (hereinafter: defendant 11 or Mu'tasem) and 'Amin Khatib (hereinafter: defendant 23 or 'Ma'min) and their three sisters for monetary consideration. As a result of the mining of the land at the site, a deep and enormous pit was created, estimated at about 400,000 cubic meters.
15. In early 2013, defendants 7 to 9 invaded and took over the area and operated an illegal site for the disposal and disposal of waste and construction waste, which on all the relevant dates of this indictment, was carried out together with defendants 20, 21, 22 and 23.
16. According to the agreement for the mining of the land, at the end of the mining work, defendant 21 was required to restore the land to its former condition by filling it with lumpy waste, thus blocking the mining pit.
17. On April 26, 2011, the engagement agreement was extended for an additional five years and until July 31, 2015, with changes regarding the consideration transferred from defendant 21 to defendants 22-23. Prior to these dates, Defendant 21 put Defendant 20 in the shoes of the Khadija Earthworks Company for the purpose of the engagement agreement.
18. The area of the cistern is estimated at c. 17 dunams and its depth reaches 30 meters below ground level in its southern part. The cistern is located above the coastal aquifer on sandy to sandy soil with high hydraulic conductivity.  The bottom of the waste pit in Taybeh is about 3 meters below the groundwater level in the area, and as a result, groundwater is drawn into the cistern.  In addition, the cistern is located within the Alexander Nahal catchment basin and is bordered to the south by the catchment basin of a stream that flows into Nahal Alexander from the west.  Within a radius of 5 km from the cistern, there are 25 groundwater wells, which are at risk of contamination as a result of the seepage of pollutants through the cistern.
19. From November 2014 and on all the dates specified in the indictment, and at least until the date of the filing of the amended indictment, defendants 7 to 9 held, operated and managed, under the supervision of Ibrahim al-Jamal, an illegal waste disposal site and construction waste, and without being built in accordance with the relevant legal requirements, including: without a business license, when it was in the public domain and open to all parties and without fencing, Gate and sign, at the same time as the aforementioned defendants, together with defendants 20 to 23, systematically dumped and buried together with defendants 10 to 19 and 24 or with others, in a systematic manner waste of various kinds, including but not limited to: dirt, iron, stones, concrete, nylon, wood, pruning and plastic, which may cause serious environmental hazards, odor hazards, pollution of water sources, severe visual hazards, animal breeding and pests, and in practice also creates an unfair competitive advantage compared to a legal waste site.
20. Thus, as a result of the agreement between Al Jamal Transports and M.P.A.T., defendants 7 to 9 intensified their activity at the site by removing very large amounts of waste from the transit station and in violation of the terms of the business license, to be buried in a pit in order to save on the costs of burying and recycling waste at authorized and legal sites, and without paying a landfill levy as required by law.
21. In addition, waste and construction waste brought from the transit station were dumped by Defendants 7 to 10 together with Defendants 20 to 23, either by themselves or by Defendants 11 to 19 and 24 or by others between 2015 and 2016 and on 2,858 different occasions as detailed in the appendices attached to the indictment.
22. Some of the aforementioned waste, which according to the delivery certificates was intended for landfill in K.H., actually arrived and was systematically disposed of in the pit.
23. On February 2, 2016, at approximately 9:46 A.M., a Volvo truck M.R. 59-672-61 entered and stopped in the northern part of the pit. Afterwards, a driver got out of the truck and entered the yellow shovel, loaded it onto the truck and left the site.
24. On March 9, 2016, it was found that the cistern contained 73,294 tons/cubic meter of construction waste, and was operating without a business license and without the infrastructure and means required by law in relation to the operation of a waste disposal site, inter alia: the waste is placed on exposed ground in the public domain, the site has no gate, is not fenced or signposted, and there is concern about soil, water and air pollution. These findings were sent to defendants 7 to 9 and 20 to 23, who were required to immediately remove all the waste to authorized sites and present references.  On 1 May 2016 and 21 September 2016, it was found that some of the debris in the pit had been covered (buried) in the ground and had been leveled.  Similarly, on September 20, 2016, it was found that a lot of debris (about 50 trucks) had been added to the southwestern part of the site.
25. On July 25, 2017, it was found that the amount of waste in the cistern had increased significantly, to the point of doubling, to 175,270 cubic meters (emphasis in original).
26. On November 27, 2014, a waste fire occurred at the site, which, as noted, is located near the residents' homes. Defendants Ibrahim al-Jamal and 'Azat were then observed pushing waste into the combustion area, despite instructions they received from the inspectors instead of refraining from covering the fire by pushing debris, but they ignored these instructions and continued to "cover" the combustion area by pushing debris, resulting in strong and unreasonable air pollution.
27. On September 18, 2016, another waste burn occurred at the site, which is located near the residents' homes, resulting in strong and unreasonable air pollution.
28. In total, during the period stated in the indictment, and at least until the filing of the amended indictment, a period of at least two and a half years, defendants 7 to 10, together with defendants 20 to 23, either by themselves or through defendants 11 to 19 and 24, or by others, dumped and buried in the pit thousands of times waste and construction waste with a total weight of at least about 175,270 cubic meters (emphasis in original).
29. The operation of the site without the infrastructure required by any law and the consequences of the unlawful waste therein created an economic profit of approximately NIS 1,909,000 (NIS 1,909,000) for defendants 7 to 9 in the period between March 2015 and March 2016
30. On April 14, 2015, the height of the piles of sorted waste exceeded the height of the fence in violation of the business license. In addition, there is a breach on the northern side of the perimeter fence in violation of the business license and business licensing regulations.
31. On April 27, 2015, it was found that the breach still existed on the northern side of the perimeter fence, in violation of the terms of the business license and the Business Licensing Regulations.
32. On October 12, 2015, it was found that the loophole still exists in the perimeter fence, in violation of the terms of the license and the Business Licensing Regulations. On January 7, 2016, a small sieve operated to sift the waste without a business license, and sifted waste and shredded waste were found at the site.  In addition, it was found that the loophole still exists in the perimeter fence, in contravention of the terms of the business license and the Business Licensing Regulations.
33. On June 23, 2016, the transit station continued to operate in violation of the terms of the business license, in violation of the law.

The Consolidated Files - Criminal Case 64963-05-16 and 64921-05-16

34. In this case, as stated, two indictments were consolidated in view of the fact that this is a similar umbrella and circumstances that allow for the conduct of a proceeding in a unified manner.
35. In criminal case 64921-05-16, an indictment was filed against Al-Jamal Moving and Ibrahim Al-Jamal for committing environmental offenses committed between the years 2013-2014.
36. In criminal case 64963-05-16, an indictment was filed against the Jamal Brothers earthworks in a tax appeal and against Izzat for committing similar offenses committed between the years 2013-2014.
37. In the hearing that took place on October 3, 2019, I ordered that all the files be consolidated and that all the exhibits be submitted under the main file.

Criminal Case 64921-05-21 - The Facts Described in the Indictment

38. Together with its manager and owner, Ibrahim al-Jamal, were charged with committing offenses of water pollution, an offense under  sections 20b(a-b) and 2021 of the Water Law, 5719-1959, and Ibrahim, together with  section 2022 of the law.  Transporting waste without a business license, an offense under Sections 4 and 14 of the Business Licensing Law, 5728-1968, together with Section 1 of the Business Licensing Order (Businesses Requiring a License) 5773-2013 and item 5.1D in the addendum to the Order, and to Ibrahim together with  Section 15(2) of the Law.  Managing a waste disposal site without a business license, an offense under Sections 4 and 14 of the Business Licensing Law, 5728-1968, together with Section 1 of the Business Licensing Order (Businesses Requiring a License), 5773-2013 and Item 5.1D in the Addendum to the Order, and to Ibrahim together with Section 15(2) of the Law.  Causing air pollution and odor hazard, offenses under Sections 3, 63(a)(1) and 96(7) of the Clean Air Law, 5768-2008 and under Section 3 of the Hazards Prevention Law, 5721-1961, together with Section 2 of the Hazards Prevention Regulations (Prevention of Unreasonable Air Pollution and Odor from Waste Disposal Sites), 5750-1990.   Operating a waste  disposal site without the infrastructure required by law, offenses under Sections 9(2) and 12 of the Regulations  for the Prevention of Hazards (Prevention of Unreasonable Air and Odor Pollution from Waste Disposal Sites), 5750-1990 with Sections 14(b), 63(b)(2) and 96(7) of the Clean Air Law, 5768-2008.  Failure to take measures to prevent combustion and unreasonable air pollution and odor, offenses under  Sections 3, 4 and 12 of the Prevention of Hazards Regulations (Prevention of Unreasonable Air Pollution and Odor from Waste Disposal Sites), 5750-1990, with Sections 14(b), 63(b)(2) and 96(7) of the Clean Air Law, 5768-2008.  Failure to take measures to extinguish a fire, offenses under  Sections 5 and 12 of the Regulations  for the Prevention of Hazards (Prevention of Unreasonable Air and Odor Pollution from Waste Disposal Sites), 5750-1990, with Sections 14(b), 63(b)(2) and 96(7) of the Clean Air Law, 5768-2008, Prohibition of Dirt and Waste Disposal in the Public Domain, Offenses under Sections 2 and 13(c)(1A) The Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984, Waste Disposal to an Unauthorized Site, many offenses under Sections 7(d) and 13(b)(4a) of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984, together with Section 29 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977.
39. In addition, Ibrahim al-Jamal was charged with the following offenses: breach of officer's responsibility (causing air pollution), offenses under section 64 of the Clean Air Law, 5768-2008. Breach of officer's liability (operating a waste disposal site without the infrastructure required by law), offenses under Section 64 of the Clean Air Law, 5768-2008.  Breach of officer's liability (failure to take measures to prevent combustion and air pollution and unreasonable odor), offenses under Section 64 of the Clean Air Law, 5768-2008.  Breach of officer's liability (failure to take measures to prevent combustion), offenses under Section 64 of the Clean Air Law, 5768-2008.  Breach of Officer's Responsibility (Prohibition of Dirt and Disposal of Waste in the Public Domain), Offenses under Section 15(a) of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984 and Breach of Officer's Responsibility (Removal of Waste to an Unauthorized Site), Offenses under Section 15(a) of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984.
40. According to the facts described in the amended indictment, it was claimed that trucks were owned by Al-Jamal Transports. In Block 7824 there is a deep and spacious pit that is in the public domain (hereinafter: "the cistern").  A plot north of the pit near the place of residence of defendant 2 was held by him at the relevant time and was under his control.
41. The area of the cistern is c. 17 dunams. The depth of the cistern reaches c. 30 meters below ground level in its southern part.  The bottom of the cistern is c. 3 m below the groundwater level in the area, and as a result, groundwater was drawn at the bottom of the cistern.
42. The cistern area is located within the drainage basin of Nahal Alexander and is bordered to the south by the Nahal Vered catchment basin, which flows into Nahal Alexander from the west. The cistern is also located in the coastal aquifer.  In addition, within a 5 km radius of the cistern, there are 25 groundwater wells, which are at risk of contamination as a result of the seepage of pollutants through the cistern.
43. During the period relevant to the indictment, from May 1, 2013 to August 24, 2014, the defendants operated a waste site in the northern part of the pit and in the northern part of the pit in the following format:
44. Trucks loaded with pruning and construction waste arrived at the northern part and dumped the waste on the spot, on the edge of the pit or directly into the pit.
45. When the debris was dumped in the northern part, the debris was then pushed into the pit using the shovels.
46. During the relevant period, Al-Jamal Moving provided waste services to the company Mipata 1965 Ltd. As part of this, the defendants removed pruning waste from the transit station operated by the Transportation Department.
47. Transporting waste and operating a waste disposal site are businesses that require obtaining a business license. On the relevant dates, the defendants did not hold a business license for transporting waste and a business license to operate a waste site.
48. To complete the picture, it should be noted that a similar activity was carried out in the western part of the cistern by Mr. Izzat Jamal, brother of Ibrahim al-Jamal.
49. During a tour of the site on May 1, 2013, around 11:00 A.M., it was found that a large amount of pruning and construction waste had been dumped at the site.
50. A tour of the site on August 26, 2013, at around 12:15 p.m., found that:
51. A large amount of chopped pruning waste and construction waste was dumped at the site.
52. Water inside the cistern was found to come into contact with debris originating at the site.
53. In October 2013, on a date that is not known to the accuser exactly, waste was dumped at the site by a truck carrying M.R. 18-212-15 belonging to Mr. Gamal Osama.
54. On the following dates, waste was dumped at the site by trucks operated by the defendants, and by trucks, some of whose license numbers are not known to the accuser and the identity of their drivers is not known at all, as detailed below:
55. 22 October 2013 - Pruning waste was dumped from a white truck numbered 75-058-12 belonging to Jamal Transports and another truck whose number is unknown to the accuser, on top of the northern plot, and from there it was pushed into the northern part of the pit using the orange shovel. It should be noted that from now on, whenever a push or throw into the pit is mentioned, it refers to the northern part of the pit.
56. 23 October 2013 - The yellow shovel entered the northern part and threw construction waste into the pit on six different occasions; a white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped construction waste there.

• 24 October 2013 - The orange shovel pushed into a garbage pit that had been dumped in its northern part.

1. 25 October 2013 - A truck bearing number 75-058-12 and a white truck carrying license numbers unknown to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped pruning waste in the northern part, in six different cases; a shovel of a garbage pit that was not known to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped construction waste in the northern part, in two separate cases; an urgent shovel into a waste pit that was discarded in the northern part.
2. 26 October 2013 - A truck with license number 61-618-70, a Scania truck belonging to Ibrahim al-Jamal, and a white truck with different license numbers entered the northern part and dumped pruning waste in the northern part and into the pit, on eight different occasions: A white truck with a license number unknown to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped construction waste into the pit. The orange squirrel pushed debris that had been dumped in the northern part of the pit into the queue.
3. 27 October 2013 - White trucks whose numbers are unknown to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped pruning debris, in two cases.

• 28 October 2013 - White trucks whose numbers are unknown to the accuser entered the northern part of the area and dumped pruning waste on the site, in four different cases; a white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped construction waste there; the orange shovel pushed the waste that had been dumped in the northern part of the pit into the queue.
• 29 October 2013 - A white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped trimming waste on the site; a white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped construction waste there.

1. 30 October 2013 - A white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the northern part of the road and dumped pruning waste at the site. The orange plume pushed into the pit the debris that had been dumped in the northern part of the site.
2. 31 October 2013 - A white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped pruning waste on the site; a white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped construction waste there; the orange truck pushed the waste that had been dumped in the northern part into the pit.
3. 1 November 2013 - A Scania truck belonging to Defendant 2 and white trucks whose numbers are unknown to the accuser entered the northern part of the plot and dumped pruning waste in part of the site, on nine different occasions; the orange shovel and the yellow shovel pushed the waste that had been thrown into the pit in the northern part.

• 2 November 2013 - White trucks whose numbers are unknown to the accuser entered the northern part of the plot and dumped construction debris on the spot, in two separate cases; the orange shovel pushed the waste that had been dumped in the northern part into the pit.
• 11.13 - A truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the northern part of the plot and dumped construction waste on the site, in two separate cases.
• 11.13 - The orange shovel pushed debris into the site that had been dumped in its northern part.

1. 5 November 2013 - A white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the northern part of the road and dumped construction debris at the site.
2. A tour of the site on November 6, 2013, at around 9:15 A.M., found that:
3. The amount of waste in the cistern increased significantly from the previous tours.
4. Construction debris and lumpy waste were found dumped in the pit.
5. In a tour of the site on November 18, 2013, at around 11:50 a.m., it was found that:
6. The amount of pruning waste in the pit has increased from previous tours
7. Construction waste is dumped in the pit.
8. A tour of the site on December 26, 2013 at around 10:50 a.m., found that:
9. A large amount of construction waste and pruning was dumped in the pit.
10. The waste in the pit burned in several locations, smoke rose from it, and the stench of smoke was felt, which caused air pollution.

• No means were found at the scene to extinguish the fire.

1. The site was not fenced.
2. The bottom of the cistern contained water that came into contact with the discarded debris.
3. At the conclusion of the website on March 5, 2014 at 10:00, it was found that:
4. Debris from the pit burned and white smoke rose from it.
5. There was water at the bottom of the cistern that came into contact with the discarded debris.
6. A tour of the site on May 13, 2014, found that:
7. A large amount of construction waste and pruning waste dumped into the pit.
8. The waste was placed on bare ground in an open area in the public domain.

• At the bottom of the cistern was water that came into contact with discarded debris.

1. Debris from the pit burned and gray smoke rose from it.
2. In a tour of the site on May 27, 2014, at approximately 1:40 P.M., it was found that:
3. The site was not fenced.
4. A large amount of construction waste and pruning waste was dumped in the pit.

• The waste was placed on bare ground in an open area in the public domain.

1. Some of the debris in the pit showed signs of burning.
2. At the bottom of the cistern was water that came into contact with discarded debris.
3. In a tour of the site on June 29, 2014, it was found that:
4. There is no gate at the entrance.
5. The site is not fenced.

• Bags containing construction waste are scattered throughout the site.

60. On 24 August 2014, a large quantity of pruning debris was discovered inside the cistern.

Criminal Case 64963-05-16 - The Facts Described in the Indictment

61. The defendants Jamal Brothers earthworks in a tax appeal and its owners, Izzat Jamal, were charged with committing offenses of water pollution, an offense under  sections 20b(a-b) and 202a of the Water Law, 5719-1959, and to Azat, together with  section 2022 of the law.  Transporting waste without a business license, an offense under Sections 4 and 14 of the Business Licensing Law, 5728-1968, together with Section 1 of the Business Licensing Order (Businesses Requiring a License), 5773-2013 and item 5.1B in the addendum to the Order, and in conjunction with Section 15(2) of the Law.  Managing a waste disposal site without a business license, an offense under Sections 4 and 14 of the Business Licensing Law, 5728-1968, together with Section 1 of the Business Licensing Order (Businesses Requiring Licensing) 5773-2013 and item 5.1D in the addendum to the order, and in conjunction with Section 15(2) of the Law.   Operating a waste disposal site without the infrastructure required by law, offenses under  sections 9(2) and 12 of the Prevention of  Hazards Regulations (Prevention of Unreasonable Air and Odor Pollution from Waste Disposal Sites), 5760-1990, with  sections 14(b), 63(b)(2) and 96(7) of the Clean Air Law, 5768-2008.  Prohibition of Dirt and Dumping of Waste in the Public Domain – Many offenses under Sections 2 and 13(c)(1a) of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984, together with Section 29 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977.  Waste disposal to an unauthorized site, many offenses under  sections 7(d) and 13(b)(4a) of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984, together with section 29 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977.
62. In addition, Izzat was charged with the following offenses: breach of an officer's responsibility (operating a waste disposal site without the infrastructure required by law), numerous offenses under Section 64 of the Clean Air Law, 5768-2008. Breach of Officer's Responsibility (Prohibition of Dirt and Disposal of Waste in the Public Domain), Offenses under Section 15(a) of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984 and Breach of Officer's Responsibility (Removal of Waste to an Unauthorized Site), Numerous Offenses under Section 15(a) of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984.
63. According to the facts of the indictment, Jamal Brothers Earthworks in a tax appeal is a private company incorporated in Israel in 1998. Izzat Jamal is its manager and owner.  A yellow shovel, the number and ownership of which are unknown, was used by the defendants at the relevant times, as detailed below.  In Block 7824, Plots 88 and 90, there is a deep and spacious pit that is in the public domain.  The plot west of the pit near the defendant's place of residence is held by him and is under his control.  The area of the cistern is c. 17 dunams.  The depth of the cistern reached c. 30 meters below ground level in its southern part.  The bottom of the cistern is located c. 3 meters below the groundwater level in the area, and as a result, groundwater is drawn at the bottom of the cistern.  The area of the cistern is located within the drainage basin of Nahal Alexander and is bordered to the south by the catchment basin of Nahal Vered, which flows into Nahal Alexander from the west.  The cistern is also located in the coastal aquifer.  In addition, within a 5 km radius of the cistern, there are 25 groundwater wells, which are at risk of contamination as a result of the seepage of pollutants through the cistern.  During the relevant period, from 1 May 2013 until 24 August 2014, the defendant operated a waste site in the western part of the pit and in the western part.  Trucks loaded with pruning and construction waste arrived at the western part of the pit and dumped the waste on the spot, on the edge of the pit or directly into the pit.  When the debris was discarded in its western part, the debris was then pushed into the pit using the yellow slope.  Transporting waste and operating a waste disposal site are businesses that require obtaining a business license.  On the relevant dates, the defendants did not hold a business license for transporting waste and a business license to operate a waste site.
64. A tour of the site on May 1, 2013, at around 11:00 A.M., revealed the following findings:
65. There is a large amount of construction waste on the site.
66. Tires were thrown at the bottom of the western part of the pit. It should be noted that from now on, whenever the term pit is mentioned, it refers to the western part of the pit.
67. A tour of the site on August 26, 2013, at around 12:15 P.M., revealed the following findings:

• There is a large amount of construction waste on the site.

1. Water in the cistern was found in contact with debris originating at the site.
2. On the following dates, waste was dumped at the site in the manner detailed below:
3. 22 October 2013 - Trucks whose license numbers below are not known to the accuser entered the western section and dumped waste instead in three separate cases.
4. 23 October 2013 - A white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the western part of the road and dumped debris there.

• 1 November 2013 - White trucks whose numbers are unknown to the accuser entered the western part of the area and dumped construction debris on the site, in two separate cases.

2. 11.13 - The Yellow Plumage pushed into the pit debris that had been thrown into the pit by the western side.
3. 3 November 2013 - A white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the western part and dumped debris there.
4. 4 November 2013 - A white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the western part and dumped construction debris there.
5. On a tour conducted on 6 November 2013 at approximately 9:15 A.M., the following findings were discovered:
6. There is a large amount of construction waste on the site.
7. From the west of the site to the edge of the pit is a path for vehicles, trucks and tractors.
8. During a tour of the site on November 18, 2013, at around 11:50 A.M., a larger amount of construction waste was found than on previous dates.
9. During a tour of the site on December 17, 2013, between 10:30 and 11:50 A.M., the following findings were discovered:
10. A white truck with a blue container dumped construction debris in its western part.
11. The defendant drove on a shovel and pushed the pruning waste and construction waste into the pit.
12. On a date unknown to the accuser, in February 2014, a white truck with the inscription "Harash Ashdod" was observed unloading construction waste at the site.
13. A tour of the waste site on 5 March 2014, at 10:00 A.M., revealed the following findings:
14. The amount of construction waste has increased significantly from previous tours.
15. At the bottom of the cistern was water that came into contact with discarded debris.
16. A tour of the waste site on 13 May 2014 revealed the following findings:
17. There is a large amount of construction waste and pruning waste on the site.
18. Waste was placed on exposed ground in an open area in the public domain.

• The bottom of the cistern contained water that came into contact with the discarded debris.

73. A tour of the waste site on 27 May 2014, at around 1:40 P.M., revealed the following findings:
74. The site contains a large amount of construction waste and pruning waste in the cistern.
75. The waste was placed on bare ground in an open area in the public domain.

• Water at the bottom of the cistern was found in contact with the discarded debris.

74. During a tour of the waste site on 29 June 2014, a large quantity of construction waste was discovered at the site.
75. On 24 August 2014, a large quantity of construction debris and lumpy debris was discovered at the site.

Replacing the Judicial Panel

76. The hearing of the evidence began on October 25, 2018 before the Honorable Judge Erez Nureli (as he was then called), who served as the panel hearing the case at the time.
77. During the course of the proceeding, with the consent of the parties, the case was transferred to the current panel for hearing, following the transfer of the Honorable Judge Nureli to serve as vice president in another court.
78. Before the case was transferred to me, three witnesses had already been heard, two of whom had completed both their main and cross-examinations, while one of the witnesses was in the midst of cross-examination.
79. With regard to the first two witnesses who testified, counsel for the defendants agreed that there would be no need to hear them again. However, as for Mr. Felix Feinstein, it was argued that he was a key witness, and that there was room to be impressed by his credibility.
80. Since the witness was expected to testify again and most of his main testimony included the submission of documents, videos and photographs, I did not find it necessary to hear his entire testimony anew. However, for the sake of good order, I determined that prior to his cross-examination, the witness, Mr. Felix Feinstein, would briefly present the main points of his main testimony, and the defense would be given the opportunity to address questions that were not asked or to clarify important points in order to get an impression of his credibility.

The Defendants Whose Case Ended

81. The verdict will deal with the case of defendants 8, 9, 20, 21, 22 and 23.
82. Of all the defendants, the following defendants: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 24 who were indicted, were convicted during the proceedings of the offenses attributed to them and sentenced.
83. On May 15, 2023, the proceedings against defendant 7 were also concluded.

• Defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 1 joined their case to criminal case 18587-02-19 and were heard before the Honorable Judge Oded Moreno, in the Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court.

Managing the proceedings in court

82. As part of this proceeding, more than 20 evidentiary hearings were held, in which many witnesses were heard and much evidence was presented to the court.
83. An in-depth discussion of the exhibits, the hearing of the witnesses and their reliability will be conducted in the chapter dealing with "Discussion and Decision".

The parties' summaries