The reasons that led Fisher to commit the offense - It was claimed that through the bribery brokerage, Fischer sought to satisfy his lust for money or to promote some personal gain of his own at the expense of the public interest.
Applicable Sentencing Policy - Counsel for the accuser noted the policy adopted in case law, according to which the status and position of the public servant who rebelled should be taken into account as a consideration for aggravating the sentence, and the higher the status and the more senior the position, the more severe this may be. Although Fischer is not a public servant, it was held in this matter In section 295(a) According to the Penal Law, the law of the broker for bribery is the same as the law of the one who takes the bribe, and it does not matter whether the broker was given consideration for the brokerage or whether the broker intended to give a bribe. In addition, the general severity of various bribery offenses was noted, as it runs like a thread in case law, which emphasized the increase in the phenomenon of public corruption in the corridors of government and law enforcement authorities, while sharpening the message required to eradicate the phenomenon by means of heavy punishment and giving considerable weight to the consideration of deterring the public. From this position the rule is derived according to which a person convicted of a bribery offense deserves to be punished with imprisonment to be served for a substantial period of time. Counsel for the accuser mentioned the following judgments: Criminal Appeal 5405/21 Cohen v. State of Israel (August 24, 2022) - Two counts of bribery, bribery brokerage, attempted bribery brokerage, two counts of fraudulent receipt under aggravated circumstances, two counts of forgery of a document under aggravated circumstances, two counts of false registration in corporate documents, two counts of money laundering, operating with prohibited property, obstruction of justice and threats. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to 18 months in prison and an accompanying sentence, instead of the 30 months imprisonment handed down by the District Court. Criminal Case (Hai District) 45690-02-14 State of Israel v. Mashiach (January 11, 2018) - A penalty range of 12 to 36 months in prison was set for a bribery broker who was also convicted of forging a document with the intention of obtaining something through it. Criminal Appeal 9180/16 Malik v. State of Israel (16.11.2017) - Bribery, solicitation of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence from 36 months to 30 months. Criminal Appeal 2216/21 Asor v. State of Israel (19.12.2021) - For offenses of taking bribes, breach of trust, and nine offenses of omitting income, 21 months in prison. Criminal Appeal 766/07 Cohen v. State of Israel (November 19, 2007) - The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of a bribery broker from 4 years in prison to 3 years in prison. Criminal Appeal 8618/19 State of Israel v. Miller (31.3.2022) - A bribe broker in the amount of NIS 100,000 was sentenced to 14 months in prison. Criminal Case (Hai District) 49454-12-17 State of Israel v. Manna (May 21, 2019) - An appropriate sentence of 10 to 24 months in prison was set for a defendant convicted of bribery and bribery, and was sentenced to a sentence of 10 months in prison at the bottom of the range. According to counsel for the accuser, although these judgments are not identical to the circumstances of the present case, they still provide criteria that assist in determining the appropriate range of punishment in our case.