Criminal Case (Petah Tikva) 22481-04-17 State of Israel v. Al-Jamal Moving Ltd. - part 2

On behalf of the accuser in criminal case 22481-04-17 in the matter of defendants 8, 9, 20, 21, 22 and 23:

84. The accuser believes that she has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal responsibility and involvement of all the defendants in respect of which the accuser's summary relates: Managing a pirate waste disposal site in a pit in Taybeh, without a business license, without paying a landfill levy in accordance with the law, after dumping waste in the public domain, at an unauthorized site, while polluting water sources and causing air pollution.
85. The accuser is of the opinion that she has also proven the criminal responsibility and involvement of defendants 8 and 9 for the environmental offenses at the Yerhiv transit station and its operation in violation of the terms of the business license, as well as in another occupation of a business that requires a license without having a separate business license necessary for someone engaged in landfilling, transporting and shredding waste.
86. The accuser claims that the guilt of all the defendants was proven in a trial in which about 300 prosecution exhibits and about 100 defense exhibits were submitted.
87. For the sake of caution, the accuser argues that if a written defect or defect is found in such an indictment that did not cause a miscarriage of justice, the court is requested to make use of section 184 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Consolidated Version), 5742-1982, in the existence of a "reasonable opportunity to defend oneself."
88. The defendants dumped hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of waste into a pit in Taybeh.
89. The accuser argues that the affair exposed systematic and organized activity of managing a pirate site and the consequences of waste in unimaginable quantities of about 175,000 cubic meters of waste. The Green Police inspectors, together with Israel Police officers, documented the consequences of various types of waste.  Thus, during the trial, it was claimed that the prosecution submitted ample evidence documenting the consequences of the waste in the pirate pit.  Among the evidence submitted are videos and photographs documenting the consequences of the waste, and in relation to them, prosecution witnesses even testified during the trial and hearing the evidence.  In addition, the dumping of waste was carried out by trucks, shovels and other tools by drivers who testified that they were employed by defendant 8, and others testified that they were sent to be dumped in the pit on the instructions of the person in charge of the 28 site under the control of defendant 21.
90. As indicated by the accuser's arguments, the indictment details nearly 3,000 trucks that dumped waste in the pit. According to the details as follows:
91. 83 Waste Dumps Documented "HOT" dumping waste in the pit, in filmed events documented and backed up by action reports by Green Police inspectors and Israel Police officers from the Environmental Protection Department. Some of the waste originated at the Yarchiv transit station.  Another part of the waste originated at the 28th landfill site of defendant 21.  The inspectors of the Green Police and the police officers of the section testified in court and their testimonies were not hidden.
92. 2,858 disposal of waste in the pit, which are detailed in two appendices attached to the indictment. The conclusion in the accuser's opinion that the trucks that ended up in the pit is the result of an analysis of circumstantial evidence collected at the interrogation stage.  In this regard, in the accuser's opinion, Inspector Feinstein thoroughly investigated and analyzed the many files, including comparing them with all the other interrogation materials, including prolonged viewing of the security cameras taken from the Yarchav station.  According to the accuser, the investigation he conducted based the conclusion that 2,858 trucks loaded with construction waste left the Yarchav transit station and found their way to the pirate pit, where they were dumped and buried.  Moreover, in order to "close the evidentiary circle", the Inspector conducted a comparative analysis between the exit of material and the entry of material into the Koah site, and submitted the results to the court, thus completing the conclusion regarding the consequences of 2,858 additional waste trucks in the pit.  In this regard, the accuser is of the opinion that the line of defense of defendant 8 regarding selective enforcement does not stand, since, as it emerges from the testimony of Inspector Feinstein, he thoroughly and thoroughly investigated the data and reached firm conclusions.  In addition, the Supervisor's cross-examination also strengthened his assertions.

• Regarding the economic benefit that arose from the consequences of waste in the pit, the accuser claims that among the evidence submitted to the court is an economic opinion prepared by the Green Police Inspector, while no counter-opinion was submitted. The total waste dumped in the pit amounts to 175,270 tons of construction waste.  Thus, the profits of the infringer amount to approximately NIS 5,000,000.  The expert also concluded in his supplementary opinion that the costs of the evacuation amount to approximately NIS 8,000,000.  The expert was interrogated at length in cross-examinations, and his testimony strengthened his conclusions, and his testimony was not contradicted.

1. With regard to the management of a landfill site and the consequences of waste in it that caused soil and groundwater contamination, an expert opinion was submitted by the accuser that was prepared by the geologist who testified about it in court, and it was not contradicted so that no counter-opinion was submitted to the case. The expert concluded that there is an immediate and real danger of soil contamination and groundwater contamination at the site and downstream.  It was further argued that the fact that the defendants managed a pirated waste site was sufficient to establish a presumption of the fact that the defendants did not refrain from any action that could cause water pollution.  In this regard, too, the evidence in the case was proven to the required extent.
2. As the accuser's summaries show, the fires in the cistern caused strong and unreasonable air pollution. Evidence of the offense was submitted to the court by Mr. Ephraim Regev of the Environmental Enforcement Unit, and his coherent testimony was not concealed.
3. In the case of Defendant 21 and Site 28, according to the accuser, the defendant has two motives for filling the pit with waste. The Koach site is located topographically adjacent and above the pirate pit.  A waste transporter who entered the 28 gates for the purpose of burying waste, and continued from the 28th site on the designated access road towards the pit, also paid an entrance fee to the 28 site and also spared the 28 site from utilizing the volume of waste, since it was actually dumped in the pirate pit and not at the authorized site, so the 28 site did not detract from the quota and at the same time saturated the "entrance fee".  In addition, the accuser claims that without noticing, the defendant approved the economic motive that was the basis for filling the pirate pit with waste during his main interrogation.  The accuser is of the opinion that the defendant's claim that defendants 8 and 9 are the main wrongdoers who made him a victim is unfounded and unprecedented.

• Also in the case of defendant 21, as claimed by the accuser, many pieces of evidence link the defendant and C.H. to the management of a pirate waste site in the pit and to the systematic consequences of waste, and it can be divided into two groups of evidence: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In the accuser's opinion, the many direct and circumstantial evidence all link Defendant 21 to what happened in the pit and to the offenses committed there. The accuser believes that we were exposed to long-term, calculated, planned, forward-looking conduct, which was intended to bring about the closure of the pit with lumpy waste: a move that included NIS 20,000,000.  Defendant 21's responsibility for the pit stems not only from direct acts he committed in connection with the management of the site and the consequences of the waste therein, but also from his refusal to perform actions that would have prevented the environmental hazard.  Therefore, the accuser argues that it has been proven beyond a doubt that by his actions and omissions, and together with others, he committed the offenses attributed to him.
• As far as defendant 8 is concerned, the accuser argues that the evidence shows that defendant 8 headed an orderly and managed business system that dealt with the waste sector. Extensive evidence also showed that waste trucks that left the Yerhiv transit station went on the orders and supervision of defendant 8 to the pit in Taybeh and dumped waste there.  He violated the terms of the business license in Yerhiv and sent waste from there to the pirate pit in Taybeh.  Many drivers who were employed by Defendant 8 and Defendant 7 connected Defendant 8 to the pit affair and testified that they threw waste in the pit on the orders of Defendant 8.  He was even documented and observed inside the pit himself, both as a manager watching his employees and making sure that they were carrying out the instructions given to them as they were doing, and as a shovel and truck driver himself.  In fact, under his direction, the crossing station in Yerchiv was activated, and thousands of trucks left from it that dumped waste in the pit.  In addition, defendant 8 chose to take responsibility for the acts he committed, during his testimony in court as part of his main interrogation, and his main frustration lies in the fact that none of his "partners" for the consequences of the waste in the pit and for the management of the pirate site in the pit are willing to share with him the responsibility accompanying the acts they committed.  In addition, in the accuser's opinion, in practice his responsibility for what happened at the Yerkhaiv station and also at the pit stems not only from direct acts he committed, but also from his refusal to carry out actions that would have prevented the environmental hazard.  Therefore, the accuser claims that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions and omissions, together with others, committed the offenses attributed to him.

1. With regard to defendant 9, the accuser claims that his motives for blocking the pit with waste are varied. He lived on the edge of the pit and his daily routine was intertwined with the pit.  The actions he performed are an integral part of his responsibility for what happens in the pit.  Defendant 9 also turned out to be an unreliable witness and significant parts of his answer showed convolution on the one hand, and an attempt to evade answers to the body of the questions, on the other.  In any event, the accuser is of the opinion that the ample evidence in the case shows that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that by his actions and omissions and in conjunction with others he committed the offenses attributed to him.
2. As for defendants 22 and 23, the accuser argues that the fact that they rented the pit to defendant 21 does not grant them an exemption or immunity from responsibility for what happened there. Their responsibility derives from the element of 'control' and the element of 'presumption' set forth in the Penal Law and the benefit that arose from the business engagement with Defendant 21, which is estimated at about $1.2 million, and turning a blind eye to the enormous hazards in the pit, tying them to the pit, and turning them into joint perpetrators, by act and omission, by what is done in the pit, and at the very least aiding and abling.
3. Moreover, the accuser argues that the criminal responsibility of all those involved in committing the offenses in the pit also stems from their being "holding" the pit, in accordance with the meaning of the term "possession" and the tests set out in court rulings. The accuser is of the opinion that during the trial, the control and possession of each of the defendants before us was proven.

• Ultimately, the accuser concluded that the cistern affair exposed a case in which various interested groups caused, by act or omission, directly or indirectly, alone or together, by turning a blind eye or with indifference, destructive consequences for nature, the environment and humans. The cistern in Taybeh has become an exceptional environmental hazard with consequences that harm many health, ecological, environmental circles and necessarily the quality of life of a huge public.

On behalf of the accuser in the consolidated cases-