Criminal Case (Petah Tikva) 22481-04-17 State of Israel v. Al-Jamal Moving Ltd. - part 5

On these foundations, the court has developed approaches to the manner in which the circumstantial evidence and the conclusions deriving from it are examined, when it is customary to follow the path of the "three-stage model" (Criminal Appeal 9372/03 von Wiesel v. State of Israel, IsrSC 59(1) 745, 754 (2004); for a critique of this model, and an alternative proposal of a "two-stage model", see the opinion of Justice N. Hendel in Criminal Appeal 6392/13 State of Israel v. Krief (January 21, 2015) (hereinafter:  The Krief case).  In summary, it will be described that according to the "three-stage model", in the first stage, each circumstantial evidence is examined on its own in order to determine whether it is possible to base a factual finding on it; In the second stage, the body of evidence as a whole is examined in order to determine whether it implicates the defendant in the commission of the offense; and in the third stage, the burden is shifted to the defendant to offer an alternative explanation to the set of circumstantial evidence, which may leave reasonable doubt as to the prima facie conclusion regarding the defendant's guilt" (Criminal Appeal 3965/22 Maxim Tal v. State of Israel, March 30, 2023).

141. I believe that the first stage of the three-stage test was crossed by the accuser. Evidence was presented on which a factual finding can be based, according to which trucks that were loaded thousands of times at the Yarkhaiv station with waste did not reach their correct destination at the Koach site.
142. This set of facts does indeed indicate a significant suspicion that the waste eventually made its way into the pit. This is based on the fact that it has been proven that this was done dozens of times that have been proven, so too the target that was recorded raises a significant probability that it is in order to indicate that it is a pit.
143. Nevertheless, I do not believe that this significant suspicion is sufficient to meet the burden imposed on the accuser in a criminal trial, and it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was indeed committed. Drawing conclusions from 80 incidents that have been proven for thousands of other incidents is far-reaching as far as criminal law is concerned. The same is true of relying on a general target registration such as Qalansua.  Moreover, the accuser herself opens her summaries with the following: "In 2017, an indictment was filed in the Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court against 24 defendants, to whom the accuser attributed acts they committed near a huge pit in the area of the city of Taybeh."
144. As has been proven before me, the records in the station's computers do not reflect reality, neither with regard to the number of trucks passing through the station nor with regard to the waste that was loaded on them, and it is precisely on the subject of their destination that the accuser seeks to rely on these records to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the trucks did indeed make their way to the registered destination and that the registered destination was the pit. This is a conclusion that is reasonable. If we are dealing with civil law, I am of the opinion that they would have been sufficient to lift the required burden, but this is not the case within the framework of criminal law.  This is a series of conclusions that do not lead to a conclusion that is devoid of reasonable doubt.
145. Therefore, I will not convict the defendant of the 2,858 waste consequences attributed to him in the indictment.
146. Nevertheless, the above, including the scope of the consequences that were proven, the scope of the waste, the length of the period in which the consequences were documented, and the drivers' testimonies about the manner in which the consequences were carried out on the direct orders of defendant 8, are sufficient to prove that there was a waste disposal site at the site and that the defendant did not comply with the regulations for the prevention of hazards that were established regarding the manner in which this site was managed, including the installation of a gate, fence, signs, as well as daily coverage of the waste. Therefore, this is in order to prove the defendant's guilt in the offenses of dumping waste and dirt in the public domain, removing waste to an unauthorized site, and even operating a waste disposal site illegally, failing to pay a landfill levy, and operating a business that requires a license without a license at all.

Performing Together

147. Section 29 of the Penal Law, which deals with the parties to the offense, states that:

• Committing an offense – including committing it together or through another.
• Those who participate in the commission of an offense while committing acts for the purpose of committing it, commit it together, and it does not matter if all the acts were committed together, or if some of them were committed by one and some by another.

148. As detailed above in section 127, seven drivers testified that they threw waste on the direct orders of defendant 8. It was also proven above that the waste was disposed of on many occasions using vehicles owned by this defendant, while he was not the one who drove all these vehicles. This is sufficient to constitute evidence that defendant 8 committed the offenses of throwing waste together with others.

Violations at the Yerkhaiv station

149. The operation and regulation of transit stations and waste sites are regulated, inter alia, by the Business Licensing Regulations (Waste Transit Station), 5758-1998.
150. The Yarchav station operated as a transit station for construction waste in accordance with a business license (P/2) granted to it by the Southern Sharon Regional Council. This license is valid from December 22, 2013 to December 31, 2018.
151. The business license was granted for the purpose of operating a Yarev plant beyond dry waste in accordance with Item No. 5.1A2 (P/133).
152. On March 1, 2015, an agreement was signed between Mifat and Defendant 8 and Defendant 7, according to which Mifat handed over the operation of the station to Defendant 8 for a monthly consideration (P/4), and on October 15, 2015, Mifat and Defendant 8 extended the engagement between them for an additional period of 3 years for the purpose of operating the station by Defendant 8 (P/3, P/118).
153. As detailed in the indictment, quantities of waste originating at the Yerchav transit station were dumped into the pit on various occasions, in violation of the terms of the business license under section 4.4.1 (P/133).
154. According to what is alleged in the indictment, on all relevant dates, defendant 8 held and operated the transit station without all the infrastructure required by law, in violation of the terms of the business license, as follows:

1. Violations of the terms of the business license from April 14, 2015 - According to the indictment, on April 14, 2015, a tour of the crossing station was conducted and it was found that the waste had crossed the height of the perimeter fence in violation of section 4.1.10 of the terms of the business license.  A breach was also found in the northern part of the perimeter fence, in violation of Section 2.1.1 of the terms of the business license.  Defendant 8 admits that a number of defects were discovered at the site that deviated from the conditions of the license, but by their nature constitute temporary and not serious defects that were created during the ongoing operation of the transit station.  In this regard, Mrs. Eli Attias, Head of the Dry Waste Branch in the Central District, testified on 27 January 2015, through which a patrol report dated 14 April 2015 (P/134) was submitted.  The witness described that during a tour conducted on 14 April 2015 at the Yerkhaiv station, it was observed that the height of the piles of cardboard, metals and the sorted wood exceeded the height of the fence, and that there was a breach on the northern side of the perimeter fence.  Her testimony and the evidence submitted on her behalf were not contradicted by any of the defendants.  Reinforcement of this matter can be found in the additional evidence that was submitted, a letter dated May 3, 2015 (P/135) from the CEO of Mifaat in which he confirms the same violations.
2. Violations of the terms of the business license dated April 27, 2015 – According to the indictment, on April 27, 2015, a tour of the crossing station was conducted, during which it was observed that the breach still existed on the northern side of the perimeter fence.  The accuser proved this and other violations by means of a report prepared by the witness Eli Attias (P/136), who also testified in court and her testimony was not contradicted.
3. Violations of the terms of the business license from October 12, 2015 – According to what is alleged in the indictment on October 12, 2015, it was found that the breach still exists in the perimeter fence that constitutes a violation of the business license.  In order to prove the violations, a report was submitted by the accuser, Ms. Neta Henik Shilo (P/109), who also testified in court on November 8, 2018, and her testimony was not contradicted.
4. Violations of the terms of the business license dated January 7, 2016 and June 23, 2016 - According to the indictment, 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.  On June 23, 2016, another tour was conducted at the transit station, and once again violations of the terms of the license and the operation of a sieve without a license were found.  In contrast to the defects reviewed above, which constitute violations of the terms of an existing business license, in the opinion of the accuser, the operation of a district is subject to a designated business license according to a specific detail in the order, and therefore constitutes a separate offense of occupation without a business license at all.  In order to prove the offenses, a report was submitted by the Dry Waste Coordinator in the Central District, Mrs. Neta Henik Shiloh (P/110), in which she describes that Bagar is carrying out shredding and sifting operations, as well as another report she prepared in which she relates to the fact that she saw debris that appeared to be sifted (P/111).  With regard to the operation of the sieve at the Yerkhaiv station, the accuser also referred to the testimony of the prosecution witness Liva Natour (P/126) and his testimony in court of June 16, 2020.  On the other hand, defendant 8 claims that a district does not require a permit under a business licensing order, and until 2016 districts did not receive a license number from the Ministry of Transportation.  The station's business license is for item 5.1A (a dry waste transfer station), while this operation of the sifting is a designated and separate item in the Business Licensing Order item 5.1c.  Therefore, I determine that the activity by means of a shovel is not in accordance with the business license given to the Yirkhaiv station (P/2, P/133) and it was required to obtain an independent business license, as the accuser says, for the purpose of operating a shoveling that requires examination and designated approvals in accordance with the law.

155. I do not accept the defendant's argument that he was not the owner of the business and/or the holder of the property and/or the license holder, nor was he an employee on their behalf, but that his actions were carried out as a service provider only within the transit station.

In accordance with Regulation 1 of the Business Licensing Regulations: "Transit Station Operator" or "Operator" any of the following -

1. 00The owner or holder of the transit station
2. 0The holder of the business license or the applicant of the license pursuant to which the matter

• The person under whose supervision, management, or supervision the transit station operates.

156. As detailed above, in accordance with the agreement signed between defendant 8 and Mifaat, the operation of the station was handed over to defendant 8 for monthly consideration. Thus, in accordance with the terms of this agreement, defendant 8 is the holder of the transit station and he is the person under whose supervision, management and supervision the transit station operates, and therefore the argument of this defendant's counsel is unclear.
157. Therefore, I determine that the guilt of defendant 8 of committing offenses of violating the terms of a business license has been proven.

Air pollution

158. The indictment attributes to the defendant two incidents of fire in the pit, which caused air pollution.
159. One fire, according to the claim, occurred on November 27, 2014. However, the accuser's counsel did not refer in his summaries to the evidence that proves this claim. Even a comprehensive review of all the evidence submitted to the court did not yield evidence to prove this claim.  Therefore, the defendant will not be convicted because of this fact.
160. Another fire occurred on 18 September 2016. In this regard, Mr. Ephraim Regev testified that he described how he saw smoke rising from the pit and therefore went to the scene and documented a fire, including smoke rising from it and causing air pollution (minutes of the hearing of May 31, 2020, p. 340). The documentation of the fire was submitted to the court (P/191).  The testimony of the witness and the evidence that was submitted with him were not contradicted by any of the defendants.
161. I do not accept the argument of counsel for defendant 8 that the defendant is not responsible for what happened in the pit. As determined above, the consequences of the waste and the scope of defendant 8's activity in the pit impose liability on him for the consequences caused as a result of these actions. The fire is in the waste found in the pit and in view of the defendant's conduct and in view of my determination that his conduct indicates that he is the operator of a waste landfill site, even if illegal, this gives rise to his responsibility for what is done there because of the waste that was thrown at him.
162. In view of the above, and in view of the regulations for the prevention of hazards that require the operator of a waste disposal site to take every reasonable measure to prevent the combustion of waste at the site, to immediately take effective measures to extinguish the fire and to take measures on a daily basis to cover the waste, the guilt of defendant 8 of the offense of causing unreasonable pollution has been proven.

Water pollution

163. The water pollution caused by the dumping of the waste in the cistern was proven by an opinion prepared by geologist Amir Eyal (P/209) and his testimony in court (transcript of the hearing of June 1, 2020).
164. The opinion determined that the height of the bottom of the cistern was about 3 meters below the level of the groundwater in the area, and as a result, free groundwater was drawn at the bottom of the cistern. Since there is free groundwater at the bottom of the cistern, which is exposed to contamination from waste dumped into it, and downstream of groundwater flow there are a large number of active drinking water wells that are exposed to contamination from waste at the site, there is a real and immediate danger of soil contamination and groundwater contamination at the site and downstream.
165. Counsel for the defendants did not submit any opposing opinion to this opinion. The opinion is detailed and reasoned, and even in the expert's cross-examination in court, no contradictions or data were discovered that contradict what was stated in it.
166. Counsel for defendant 8 argues that the opinion should not be accepted in view of the fact that the expert did not visit the place. I do not accept this argument. The opinion is reasoned and relies on relevant maps, photographs and testimonies provided from the field, and I was under no impression that the expert's absence at the scene would lead to doubt in the opinion.
167. Counsel for the defendant further argues that the expert determined that the person who hired the pit was the one who created the hazard. It is clear that the very act of digging the cistern makes a significant contribution to the possibility of water contamination, but in the end, the expert explicitly states in the summary of his opinion (p. 18) that the potential for contamination is caused by the fact that the active drinking water is exposed to contamination from the waste at the site. Since evidence was brought that defendant 8 threw waste at the site, even in considerable quantities, his actions caused the potential for water pollution and thus violated the law.
168. Indeed, no groundwater test was conducted, but the law's requirement is for the potential for damage, and this has been proven.
169. Counsel for the defendant also points out that the authorities themselves did not do enough to prevent the damage. Indeed, on this matter I agree with the defendant's counsel. However, the fact that an authority does not do enough to protect against offenders does not constitute a reason to acquit the offenders themselves who committed the offense.
170. In view of the above, I determine that the accuser met the burden imposed on her to prove that the offense of water pollution was committed by defendant 8.

Additional Defense Arguments

171. Counsel for defendant 8 raised a defense argument according to which the indictment does not delimit the boundaries of the pit. He points out that the indictment in C.C. 64921-05-16 referred only to plots 88 and 90. Similarly, most of the proceedings that took place in the case of defendants 21-22, both vis-à-vis the authorities and against defendant 8, and other defendants dealt with these plots.  Moreover, the indictment attributes to defendants 7-9 an invasion of other land, while Plot 4 is located on the territory of Defendant 8.  Therefore, the defendant's counsel is of the opinion that the lack of demarcation does not allow the defendant to prove his guilt.
172. I did not find any substance in this claim. The indictment relates to a pit that was created in Plots 4, 90 and 88. This fact was proven before the court in testimonies, maps and photographs.  This is a large pit that was described and demonstrated many times during the trial by witnesses, defendants and experts.  The offenses are attributed to the very dumping of the waste into this pit and I did not find any ambiguity or doubt in the demarcation of the pit.  The fact that part of it is located in the territory of defendant 8 does not change the significance of the commission of the offenses.  As described above, defendant 8 indeed admitted to throwing waste in plot 4, and when it is in a pit, his confession is of committing the offense of throwing waste in a pit.
173. Counsel for defendant 8 also raised a claim of selective enforcement. Initially, defendants 20-21 were not indicted in criminal case 64921-05-16 and were added to the main indictment only after it was amended. Counsel for defendant 8 sees this as discrimination.  I do not accept this argument either.  As will be detailed in the chapter dealing with defendants 20-21, I am of the opinion that no indictment was filed against these defendants in criminal case 64921-05-16,  and I have even ordered that they be acquitted of the indictment before me.  There is a substantial difference between the actions of this defendant and the actions of those defendants, as will be detailed below, in the chapter that will deal with their case.
174. There was also an allegation that the representatives of the municipalities of Taybeh and Qalansua had dumped waste in the pit, and therefore the failure to investigate them also constitutes selective enforcement. I do not accept this argument either. During the trial, representatives of these municipalities testified and the suspicion was presented that they had thrown pruning into the pit.  But as one might see, even if suspicion arose, there was no evidence to that effect.  In contrast to the significant evidence that was established against Defendant 8, and therefore the matter cannot be viewed as selective enforcement.
175. Counsel for defendant 8 complained that the authorities had not done enough for years to arrest the assailant, and instead engaged in collecting evidence against the defendants. I am of the opinion that there is substance to this argument, but it does not change the guilt of defendant 8. As stated above, insufficient action to prevent delinquency is not grounds for acquittal of the offenders themselves.
176. Counsel for defendant 8 also disagreed with the data on which the accuser relied in determining the amount of waste thrown into the pit by the defendants and the economic gain generated from it. He pointed out that from the testimonies and evidence in the file, a lot of waste had accumulated in the pit even before the dates dealt with in this indictment, so that it is not possible to attribute to defendant 8 all the waste found in the pit, and there is no way to quantify the waste that was added from 2013 until now. He points out that the measurements made by the accuser were not carried out by a certified surveyor, and that these measurements were not made with actual measurements in the field, but on the basis of "illustration" in maps and photographs.  As to the measurement attached to Exhibit 149, counsel for the defendant raised 8 arguments regarding the manner in which it was made.
177. The opinions submitted by the accuser are detailed and reasoned. The editors of the opinion testified in court and were cross-examined and gave detailed explanations regarding their way of working. No counter-opinion was submitted by the defendants, so I did not find any reason to disqualify these opinions or not to accept them.  However, as stated above, defendant 8 was not convicted of anything attributed to him.  Moreover, the argument of counsel for defendant 8 regarding waste that was discarded even before the date of the indictments is correct, so that in any case it is not possible to attribute to defendant 8 the entire dumping of the waste into the pit.  However, the aforesaid does not diminish his liability as the unlawful operator of the website.

Conclusion (Criminal Case 22481-04-17)

178. In view of the above, I convict the defendant of committing offenses of violating the terms of a business license, an offense under sections 4, 7 and 14 of the Business Licensing Law, 5728-1968 and section 15 of the aforementioned law. 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), offenses 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 License), 5773-2013 and Section 15 of the aforementioned law.  Failure to pay a landfill levy,  an offense under sections 13(a)(6) and 11d of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984.  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), 5750-1990.  Dumping construction waste, lumpy waste and public domain dirt together, 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.  Removal of waste to a site that is not jointly licensed,  an offense under sections 13(b)(4a) and 7(d) of the Maintenance  of Cleanliness Law, together with section 29 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977.   Pollution of a water source together, in accordance with offenses under Sections 20b(b) and 2021 of the Water Law, 5719-1959, together with Section 29 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977.  And since defendant 8 committed the offenses in the framework of his position as defendant 7, he is also convicted of offenses of breach of liability of an officer of a corporation, offenses under  sections 15 of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984, 64 of the Clean Air Law, 5728-2008 and 2022 of the Water Law, 5719-1959.
179. As detailed above, the conviction does not include 3 consequences and 2,858 additional consequences attributed to him in the indictment.
180. Crim. 64921-05-16

• against Defendant 8 and Al-Jamal Moving Company In a tax appeal, as stated, an additional indictment was filed for the commission of environmental offenses that were manifested in the operation of the site from May 1, 2013 until August 24, 2014 (where defendant 8 is accused as defendant 2).

181. This indictment details the consequences of waste at the site, at various times and occasions.
182. The accuser proved the consequences of the waste by presenting direct evidence, inter alia, by means of a CD containing videos of waste dumping between 22 October 2013 and 5 November 2013, in which multiple dumps can be viewed from trucks into the pit (P/264). These consequences were carried out in the northern part of the pit near the defendant's place of residence, which was held by him at the relevant time and was under his control. They were also carried out by trucks or vehicles operated by the defendants or owned by them.
183. And all as detailed as follows:
184. On the dates detailed below, waste dumping was carried out at the site by trucks operated by the defendants, as well as by other trucks whose license numbers and the identity of the drivers were not known to the accuser, in the northern part of the pit;

• 22 October 2013 - Waste was dumped from a white truck numbered 75-058-12 owned by the defendant and from another truck whose number is unknown to the accuser, on top of the northern plot that is under the control of the defendant, and from there it was pushed into the northern part of the pit by means of an orange shovel.
• 23 October 2013 - A yellow shovel entered the northern part of the pit and threw construction waste into the pit on six separate occasions. A white truck, the number of which is unknown to the accuser, entered the northern part of the road and dumped construction debris there.
• 24 October 2013 - Orange shovel M.R. 334-336 pushed into a waste pit that had been dumped in the northern part.
• 25 October 2013 - A truck carrying M.R. 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. White trucks carrying license numbers unknown to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped debris that had been dumped in the northern part.
• 26 October 2013 - A 61-618-70 Scania truck belonging to the defendant and white trucks entered the northern part and dumped pruning waste in the northern part and into the pit, in eight different cases.
• 27 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.
• 28 October 2013 - White trucks whose numbers are not known to the accuser entered the northern part of the area and dumped pruning waste at the site, in four different cases.
• 29 October 2013 - A white truck, the number of which is unknown to the accuser, entered the northern part of the road and dumped pruning debris there. A white truck, the number of which is unknown to the accuser, entered the northern part of the road and dumped construction debris on the spot.
• 30 October 2013 - A white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped construction debris there. The orange shovel pushed the debris that had been dumped in the northern part of the site into the line of the pit.
• 31 October 2013 - A white truck, the number of which is unknown to the accuser, entered the northern part of the road and dumped pruning debris at the site. A white truck, the number of which is unknown to the accuser, entered the northern part of the road and dumped construction debris on the spot.  The orange plume pushed into the pit the debris that had been dumped in its northern part.
• 11.13 - 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 the area, in nine cases. The orange shovel and the yellow shovel pushed the waste that had been dumped in the northern part of the pit into the pit.
• 11.13 - White trucks whose numbers are unknown to the accuser entered the northern part of the plot and dumped construction waste on the site, in two separate cases. The orange plumage pushed the waste that had been dumped in the northern part of the pit into the line.
• 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.
• 4 November 2013 - The orange shovel pushed debris that had been dumped in the northern part of the site to the site.
• 5 November 2013 - A white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the northern part and dumped construction debris there.

1. The accuser claims that in October 2013, on a date that is not known to the accuser, waste was dumped at the site by a truck carrying M.R. 18-212-15 belonging to Mr. Gamal Osama. However, this implication has not been proven, in the absence of supporting evidence.
2. Moreover, the accuser presented and proved through various patrol reports documenting the presence of a large quantity of construction waste, pruning, tires and the presence of water inside the pit that came into contact with waste originating at the site, all in the northern part of the pit and near the area in the possession of defendant 8. This is as follows:
3. During a tour of the site on 1 May 2013 at around 11:00 A.M., it was found that a large amount of pruning waste and construction waste had been dumped at the site, a finding that was proven by P/234.
4. A tour of the site on 26 August 2013, at around 12:15 P.M., found a large amount of chopped pruning waste and construction waste that had been dumped at the site, as well as water that had been in the cistern that had come into contact with waste originating at the site. Findings proved by P/236.
5. During a tour of the site on November 6, 2013, at around 9:15 A.M., it was found that the amount of pruning waste in the pit had increased significantly from previous tours, and construction waste and lumpy waste were found dumped in the pit. Findings proved by the accuser by means of P/235.
6. During a tour of the site on November 18, 2013, at around 11:50 A.M., it was found that the amount of pruning waste in the pit had increased from previous tours and that construction waste was dumped in the pit. Data proved by P/237.
7. During a tour of the site on December 18, 2013, a large amount of pruning waste was found. A finding proved by means of P/238.
8. During a tour of the site on December 26, 2013, it was found that a large amount of construction waste and pruning had been thrown into the pit, the waste in the pit burned a number early, smoke rose from it and the smell of smoke caused by air pollution was felt, no means of extinguishing the fire were found at the site, the site was not defined, and there was water at the bottom of the pit that was found in contact with the waste that was discarded. Findings proved by P/239.
9. A tour of the site on 5 March 2014 found that debris from the pit had burned and white smoke had risen from it, and that there was water at the bottom of the pit that had come into contact with the waste that had been discarded. Findings proved by P/240.
10. During a tour of the site on 27 May 2014, it was found that the site was not fenced, a large amount of construction waste and pruning waste was dumped in the pit, the waste was placed on exposed ground in an open area in the public domain, some of the waste in the pit showed signs of combustion and there was water at the bottom of the pit that came into contact with the waste that was discarded. Findings proved by means of P/106 and P/241.
11. A tour of the site on 29 June 2014 found that there was no gate at the entrance to the site, the site was not fenced off and sacks containing construction waste were scattered throughout the site. Findings proved by P/242.
12. On 24 August 2014, a large quantity of pruning waste was discovered at the site. A figure that was proved by the accuser by means of P/243.
13. The offenses attributed to Defendant 8 in accordance with the Water Law, the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law and the Clean Air Law are offenses in which the mental element required is one of strict responsibility.
14. Section 13(f) of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984 explicitly states that "an offense under this section is of the type of offense of strict liability". Section 2 of this law prohibits the disposal of waste, construction waste or car scrap in the public domain or dirt in the public domain.
15. Section 2021(b) of the Water Law, 5719-1959, explicitly states that certain offenses, including water pollution offenses, are of the type of offenses of strict liability.
16. The Clean Air Law, 5768-2008, explicitly states that certain offenses are of the strict liability type. In particular, section 63(g) of the law states that offenses of causing strong or unreasonable air pollution, in contravention of section 3 of the law, as well as additional offenses detailed in sections 63(a) and 63(b)(1) to (4), are offenses of strict liability.
17. This means that, in accordance with section 22(a) of the Penal Law, the prosecution is not required to prove a mental basis of criminal thought or negligence, but rather it is sufficient to prove the factual basis of the offense. However, the defendant has a defense if he proves that he acted without criminal thought or negligence and took all reasonable measures to prevent the offense.
18. The legislature deliberately and for the purposes of law enforcement found that in certain laws the requirement to prove a mental element would lead to the fact that it would not be possible to achieve the social goal underlying the law and to protect social values in these areas, and therefore it determined as an exception the possibility of committing a criminal offense without requiring proof of a mental element. In this regard, I will refer to Rabin Wakey's book – Penal Law, Volume 1, where (p. 504) they describe as follows: "Towards the middle of the 19th century, a position began to develop in common law (and in the legal systems that will be derived from it) according to which there may be offenses whose factual foundations are not accompanied by any mental component, not even negligence.  In accordance with this approach, in offenses relating to public policy (such as traffic, planning and construction, environmental protection, sanitation, work safety, etc.), it is possible, if necessary, to impose absolute liability that is not contingent on the proof of any mental element on the part of the defendant."
19. Some of the offenses described above were committed directly by vehicles owned by the defendants. All of the offenses were committed from an area in the possession of defendant 8. This is a plot located near his home.  As can be seen from the evidence presented above, vehicles belonging to him threw waste from this department and the defendant himself confessed, as quoted above, that he was involved in throwing waste from this place.
20. Therefore, and since no claim was raised on the part of defendant 8 that he acted in any way in order to prevent the commission of these offenses from his territory, his responsibility is for all the consequences of the waste that was committed from this area, and these consequences were proven in the evidence as detailed above.
21. The result of these consequences is the cause of water pollution and air pollution and an odor hazard, as proven above and as explained in the section relating to criminal case 22481-04-17.
22. As stated, defendant 8 admitted that he threw waste into the pit and not in an isolated case, and therefore his responsibility arose for what happened in the pit in light of the dumping of this waste, and therefore in this criminal case as well he will be convicted of managing a waste disposal site without a business license, as well as operating a waste disposal site without the infrastructure required by law, failing to take measures to prevent combustion and air pollution and unreasonable odor, and failing to take measures to extinguish a combustion.
23. In view of the fact that Defendant 8 is an officer of Defendant 1, he will also be convicted of offenses of breach of liability of an officer in the relevant offenses.

Conclusion (Criminal Case 64921-05-16)

204. In view of the above, I convict the defendant of committing water pollution offenses, an offense under sections 20B (a-b) and 2021 of the Water Law, 5719-1959, together with section 20 22 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, 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, 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.  Removal of waste to an unauthorized site, pursuant to  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.  Breach of Officer's Liability (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.

Defendant 9

205. Criminal Case 64963-05-16

• The indictment attributes to defendant 9 Izzat Jamal (where he is accused as defendant 2) and the Jamal brothers company earthworks in a tax appeal that was under his management and ownership at the time, the commission of environmental offenses that manifested itself in waste implications and the operation of an illegal waste site from 1 May 2013 until 24 August 2014 in the western part of the cistern, with a plot of land west of the pit adjacent to Izzat's place of residence held by them and under their control.

206. Most of the accuser's evidence submitted in this case is videos backed up by observation reports and patrol reports documenting the presence of a large quantity of construction waste, pruning, tires, etc., in the western part of the pit and near the area in the possession of defendant 9, and documentation of waste dumps at the site that were carried out on different occasions and from various trucks.
207. As to the waste disposal attributed to the defendant, the accuser proved them by means of a disc containing videos of waste dumping (P/264), between 22 October 2013 and 5 November 2013, in the western part of the pit, which is in the defendant's possession. And all as follows:
208. Consequences of 22 October 2013 by trucks whose license numbers are not known to the accuser, which entered the western part of the property and dumped waste on the site in three separate cases.
209. A dumping truck on 23 October 2013 by a white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser entered the western part and dumped debris there.

• Aftermath of 1 November 2013, using white trucks whose numbers are unknown to the accuser, entered the western part of the city and dumped construction waste in two separate cases. In addition, that same day, a yellow shovel pushed the waste into the pit that was thrown by them.

1. A dumping truck on 3 November 2013 by a white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser, entered the western part and dumped debris at the site.
2. A dumping truck on 4 November 2013 by a white truck whose number is unknown to the accuser, entered the western part of the road and dumped debris there.
3. With regard to the alleged dumping of construction waste from February 2014, in which a white truck M.R. 59-672-61 with the inscription "Harash Ashdod" was observed unloading construction waste at the site, no evidence was brought to substantiate this action, and therefore the dumping was not proven. The same applies to the act attributed to the defendant on 2 November 2013 by means of the shovel in the western part, for which no evidence was brought to substantiate the act.
4. As for the patrol reports detailed in the indictment, which indicate the presence of a large amount of waste, water at the bottom of the cistern, and the addition of construction waste and pruning, it was proven by the accuser as follows:
5. During a tour conducted on 1 May 2013, at around 11:00 A.M., during which findings of a large quantity of construction debris were discovered, and tires were thrown at the bottom of the western part of the pit, which were proven by P/34.
6. During a tour of the site on 26 August 2013, at approximately 12:15 P.M., findings of a large quantity of waste at the site were discovered, as well as water in the pit that was found in contact with waste originating at the site, which was proven by P/236.

• During a tour of the site on November 6, 2013, at approximately 9:15 A.M., findings were discovered that a large amount of construction waste had been found at the site, and west of the site and up to the edge of the pit, there was an access path for vehicles, trucks and tractors, which were proven by P/237.

1. During a tour of the site on December 17, 2013, between 10:30 and 11:50, defendant 9 was seen driving a shovel M.R. 75754-04, a case type, and pushing pruning waste and construction waste into the pit. Defendant 9 was confronted with this finding during his cross-examination in court and explained: "The question is where he caught me with a shovel, he caught me on my property" (Hearing of 21 May 2024, p. 40, s. 27) and later when he was shown the video in which he was seen driving with a shovel and was asked: "Is this the shovel you were driving that day?"   In his interrogation with the police (P/232), defendant 9 also admitted that he was the one who drove the shovel in that incident.
2. A tour of the site on December 18, 2013, at around 8:30 A.M., discovered a large quantity of pruning debris, a finding that was proven by P/238.
3. During a tour of the waste site on 5 March 2014, at 10:00 A.M., findings were discovered that the amount of construction waste had increased significantly from previous tours, and that there was water at the bottom of the pit that had come into contact with discarded waste, which was proven by P/240.

• During a tour of the waste site on 13 May 2014, findings were discovered that a large quantity of construction waste and pruning waste had been deposited at the site, waste had been placed on exposed ground in an open area in the public domain, and there was water at the bottom of the cistern that had come into contact with the waste that had been discarded, which was proven by P/105.
• During a tour of the waste site on 27 May 2014, at around 1:40 P.M., findings were discovered that a large amount of construction waste and pruning waste in the pit had been placed on exposed ground in an open area in the public domain, and water at the bottom of the pit had come into contact with the waste that had been discarded. Findings proved by means of P/106 and P/241.

242. During a tour of the waste site on 29 June 2014, a large quantity of construction waste was discovered at the site, a finding that was proven by the accuser by exhibit P/242.
243. On 24 August 2014, a large quantity of construction waste and lumpy waste was discovered at the site, findings that were proved by P/243.
244. As can be seen from the above, all of the consequences described in this indictment were carried out from the western part of the cistern, with a plot of land west of the cistern adjacent to 'Azat's place of residence, held by 'Azat and under his control.
245. The possession and control of defendant 9 in this area is proven by his own testimony in court. Defendant 9 testified that: "I don't let anyone enter" (hearing of 21 May 2024, p. 25, para. 20). The defendant also testified that the area was closed by the gate and that only he could open the gate using an app on his cell phone (p. 35, ibid.).  The area is enclosed by fences, and in order to enter the area, one must call him personally (p. 36, ibid.).
246. As proved above by means of P/237 and as testified by defendant 9 himself (p. 5, ibid.), from the area of defendant 9 to the rim of the pit there is a road used by the vehicles in order to reach the rim of the pit and dump waste. This, he says, is also the only way to do it.
247. In his interrogation with the police (P/232), the witness described: "The trucks enter through my territory and the intention is to enter the cemetery that is more western, and close to the cemetery."
248. The aforesaid proves that the consequences of the waste described above were carried out from the area under the absolute control of defendant 9. and one throwing was even carried out by the defendant himself.
249. The offenses attributed to defendant 9 in accordance with the Water Law, the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law and the Clean Air Law are offenses in which the mental element required is that of strict responsibility.
250. Section 13(f) of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 5744-1984 explicitly states that "an offense under this section is of the type of offense of strict liability". Section 2 of this law prohibits the disposal of waste, construction waste or car scrap in the public domain or dirt in the public domain.
251. Section 2021(b) of the Water Law, 5719-1959, explicitly states that certain offenses, including water pollution offenses, are of the type of offenses of strict liability.
252. The Clean Air Law, 5768-2008, explicitly states that certain offenses are of the strict liability type. In particular, section 63(g) of the law states that offenses of causing strong or unreasonable air pollution, in contravention of section 3 of the law, as well as other offenses detailed in sections 63(a) and 63(b)(1) to (4), are offenses of strict liability.
253. This means that, in accordance with section 22(a) of the Penal Law, the prosecution is not required to prove a mental basis of criminal thought or negligence, but rather it is sufficient to prove the factual basis of the offense. However, the defendant has a defense if he proves that he acted without criminal thought or negligence and took all reasonable measures to prevent the offense.
254. The legislature deliberately and for the purposes of law enforcement found that in certain laws the requirement to prove a mental element would lead to the fact that it would not be possible to achieve the social goal underlying the law and to protect social values in these areas, and therefore it determined as an exception the possibility of committing a criminal offense without requiring proof of a mental element. In this regard, I will turn to Rabin Wakey's book "Penal Law," 1, where (p. 504) they describe as follows: "Towards the middle of the 19th century, a position began to develop in common law (and in the legal systems that will be cleansed of it) according to which there may be offenses whose factual foundations are not accompanied by any mental component, not even negligence. In accordance with this approach, in offenses relating to public policy (such as traffic, planning and construction, environmental protection, sanitation, work safety, etc.), it is possible, if necessary, to impose absolute liability that is not contingent on the proof of any mental element on the part of the defendant."
255. Therefore, and since no claim was raised on the part of defendant 9 that he acted in any way in order to prevent the commission of these offenses from his area, his responsibility is for all the consequences of the waste that was committed from this area and these consequences were proven in the evidence as detailed above.
256. The result of these consequences is the cause of water pollution and air pollution and odor hazard, as proved above and as explained in the section relating to criminal case 22481-04-17 in the case of defendant 8.
257. From the patrol reports, it can be learned that a waste site was created in a pit in the area adjacent to the plot controlled by defendant 9. As aforesaid, access to this area is under the exclusive control of this defendant and therefore defendant 9 will also be convicted of managing a waste disposal site without a business license, as well as operating a waste disposal site without the infrastructure required by law, failing to take measures to prevent combustion and air pollution and unreasonable odor, and failing to take measures to extinguish a fire.
258. In view of the fact that Defendant 9 is an officer of Defendant 2, he will also be convicted of offenses of breach of responsibility of an officer in the relevant offenses.

Defense Arguments

224. Counsel for the defendant raised a series of defense arguments, which I will discuss now.
225. She pointed out that most of the evidence indicting this indictment was based on videos, which, according to her, had not been proven. According to her, those videos are part of footage that was allegedly recorded, by cameras placed in an unknown location, in or near a pit. The same cameras or the same means of photography operated in an unknown manner, from an unknown place, and there is no evidence of the reliability of its products.  She is of the opinion that by choosing to issue a certificate of confidentiality regarding all of these in favor of the public interest, over the full disclosure of her evidence, she waived her ability to prove the events by means of these videos.
226. This argument was raised by her and by counsel for defendant 8 already during the evidentiary hearing in the hearing on June 15, 2020, and after hearing the arguments of the parties, I gave a reasoned decision on the matter and determined that there was nothing to prevent reliance on these videos that were submitted through the witnesses Sagi Azani and Ziv Shahar. The mere fact that there is confidentiality on the way of playback and precise location does not prevent the receipt of the videos. I further determined that if, as a result of the cross-examination, questions arise arising from the very angle of the photograph or the nature of the camera, and claims are made in the matter by the defense attorneys, this will be examined and, if necessary, it will be reflected in the weight given to these videos.  Counsel for defendant 9 pointed to "jumps" in the videos, but these were explained by the fact that these are cameras that operate according to traffic and cameras only when there is movement in the area.  In this state of affairs, I did not find that it is possible to point out any flaw in the videos and therefore give them full weight.
227. Counsel for defendant 9 further points out that the shovel in which the defendant was observed driving is not in his possession. I did not find that this fact is sufficient to change my decision regarding the evidence of this incident. To whom does it matter to whom does the lowly belong belong?  The defendant was observed driving it and pushing waste into the pit, thus extracting the evidence.
228. Counsel for the defendant is of the opinion that the testimonies of Salim and Abd al-Karim Khadija against defendant 9 should not be relied upon. Indeed, I did not rely on these testimonies in the aforesaid.
229. Counsel for defendant 9 argued that there was improper discrimination in the fact that an indictment was filed against this defendant while many parties, including large companies, were involved in the act. This claim is not clear to me. The indictment was filed against all the parties mentioned in the defendant's arguments.  Each according to his part.  And as mentioned above, most of these defendants were indeed convicted in the framework of this proceeding.
230. Counsel for defendant 9 also argued that the defendant was not given the right to consult and that he was interrogated in Hebrew, even though he speaks Arabic. An examination of the defendant's statements indicates that he has the right to a lawyer to be notified and he even signed it. As could be seen from the defendant's testimony in court.  After all, he speaks Hebrew alongside being an Arabic speaker, so I did not find anything wrong with the fact that he was interrogated in Hebrew.
231. Counsel for the defendant pointed to a delay of more than two years in the filing of the indictment. I did not find that this was a significant delay and certainly did not affect the verdict in the defendant's case.

Conclusion (Criminal Case 64963-05-16)

232. In view of the above, I convict the defendant of committing offenses of water pollution, an offense under sections 20b(a-b) and 202a of the Water Law, 5719-1959, 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, 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, together 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 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 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.  Removal of waste to an unauthorized site, 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.   Breach of an officer's responsibility (operating a waste disposal site without the infrastructure required by law), many 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.

Criminal Case 22481-04-17

233. This indictment also accuses Defendant 9 of committing environmental offenses that manifested themselves in the consequences of waste and operating an illegal waste site, as well as violating the terms of a business license at the Yerkhaiv station.
234. The accuser links the defendant to the commission of the offenses by means of the fact alleged by her that defendant 9 worked for defendant 7 as a driver on truck 59-672-61. In addition, defendant 9 drove on some of the shovels, with which waste was pushed and dumped into the pit. Similarly, the house of defendant 9 and an area he owns are bordered by a pit to the west, and from there trucks also entered the area to carry out waste dumping.
235. Despite the aforesaid, no evidence was presented that Defendant 9 worked for Defendant 7.
236. No evidence was presented that this defendant drove or operated all of the shovels mentioned in the indictment exclusively.
237. On the other hand, evidence was presented that defendant 9 was in possession of a Volvo M.R. 59-672-61 truck.
238. This fact was proved by the testimony of defendant 8, who testified in court at a hearing held on May 23, 2022, that he transferred this truck to defendant 9, but did not transfer the ownership in the records in view of the liens that were placed on it (p. 615). In his interrogations with the Green Police, defendant 8 also testified to this (P/32, P/260). Defendant 9 himself confirms this in his interrogation by the Green Police (P/34).  Defendant 9 also confirmed to the court that he had worked on this truck (hearing of 21 May 2024).
239. Evidence was also presented for a number of incidents in which the defendant himself threw waste in the pit.
240. The accuser attributes to the defendant 3 waste dumps from 13 May 2015 and 2 February 2016, as well as an incident on 30 August 2016, in which he was recorded "red-handed", but denied them and claimed that he was not the person being seen and documented.
241. With regard to the incident of May 13, 2015, the accuser proved the alleged case by means of P/7, P/7A, as well as a CD P/8 (photos 1515, 1517, 1518, 1519 and 1522), which document dumping by a Volvo truck, in which it was proven, as stated above, that it was in the defendant's possession.
242. With regard to the incident of dumping waste on August 30, 2016, the accuser proved the act by means of P/92, P/93 and P/94, which was also carried out by means of a Volvo truck, for which it was proven that it was in the defendant's possession.
243. With regard to the incident of February 2, 2016, the accuser tries to prove that the defendant drove the tractor in the lower northern part of the pit by means of P/15, P/15A, P/16 and by the testimony of Inspector Feinstein. Regarding this incident, the witness Feinstein testified that he recognized that the defendant entered the pit with a Volvo truck, passed from the truck into the yellow tractor in the northern part of the pit, at the bottom of the pit, and loaded rented earth into the truck. Indeed, in this evidence there is evidence linking the defendant to the act, but it is not an act of throwing waste.
244. Beyond the above, it can be learned from the evidence that on a number of occasions waste was dumped from the western part of the cistern, a place that was proven above to be in the exclusive possession of this defendant:
245. One dump dated 28 December 2015 was proved by means of P/13, P/13A and T/26, from which it appears that the dumping was carried out in the western part of the pit.
246. One dump dated 31 January 2016 was proven by P/14, P/14A and T/26, where it is described that the waste was dumped in the southwestern part of the pit.

• Two of the three consequences of February 4, 2016 were proved by the accuser by P/16, P/16A and P/26, where it is described that the waste was dumped in the western part of the pit and the upper western part.

1. One dump of 9 February 2016 was proved by P/24, P/24A and P/26, according to which debris was dumped in the southwestern part of the cistern.
2. One of the three dumps dated 23 February 2016 was proven by P/24, P/24A and T/26, where it is described that the debris was dumped in the western part of the pit.
3. One of the five disposals of 9 August 2016 was proved by means of P/80, P/82 and P/83A, from which it appears that in the observation that was made, a truck was observed entering the site from the direction of the house of the defendant Izzat Jamal and the dumping of waste was identified.

• Two consequences of August 28, 2016 were proved by means of P/87 and P/90, from which it appears that a truck stopped near the house of the defendant Izzat or entered the site from the direction of the defendant's house, and later the dumping of waste from those trucks was also identified.

245. With this in mind, and in continuation of the details and reasoning given above with regard to criminal case 64963-05-16, the evidence presented above is sufficient to determine that defendant 9 unlawfully dumped waste in all of those incidents.
246. Indeed, evidence of cooperation between defendants 8 and 9 was presented through the statement of the driver, Abdallah Salameh (P/31), that he had placed empty containers brought from the Yirkhiv transit station, on the orders of defendant 8, since there was no space left at the crossing station. However, this single testimony is not sufficient to lead to a determination that defendant 9 committed all the consequences attributed to defendant 8 together, since no additional evidence was presented to that effect.
247. However, in view of the multiple consequences that were carried out from the land of defendant 9 and the fact that there is exclusive access from his territory to the pit, the findings detailed above in the case of defendant 8 with regard to the waste site that was created at the site are sufficient to determine that defendant 9 is also responsible for the illegal management of the waste site. As a result, as detailed and reasoned above, offenses of water pollution and air pollution are also committed.
248. On the other hand, no evidence was presented linking Defendant 9 to the offenses of violating the terms of a business license at the Yerchav transit station. The mere fact that Defendant 8 stored containers of the Yeriv Transit Station in the territory of Defendant 9 does not connect this defendant to the offenses committed by Defendant 8 at the transit station.

Defense Arguments

249. In the matter of this indictment as well, counsel for the defendant raised a series of defense arguments, which I will now address.
250. Counsel for the defendant raised an argument regarding the accuser's use of sweeping basket terms. However, this judgment, as detailed and reasoned above, relates only to defined facts, and all the evidence that led to the conviction of the defendant detailed above was based solely on specific evidence that was detailed as aforesaid.
251. The argument of counsel for defendant 9 that it was not proven that "joint execution" was indeed accepted.
252. The arguments of counsel for defendant 9 regarding the flaws in the defendant's interrogation and the delay were not accepted, as detailed and reasoned above with regard to criminal case 64965-05-16.

Conclusion (Criminal Case 22481-04-17)

253. In view of the aforementioned rule, I convict the defendant of committing offenses of operating a waste disposal site unlawfully (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 and Odor Pollution 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.  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), 5750-1990.  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.  Removing waste to an unauthorized site, an offense under  Section 13(b)(4a) and 7(d) of the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law.   Pollution of a water source, offenses under  sections 20b(b) and 202a of the Water Law, 5719-1959.

Defendants 20-21