The defense referred to case law that the sentence must give real expression to the discrepancies between the original indictment and the amended indictment, as well as to judgments in which it was decided to reduce the sentence significantly due to discrepancies between the beginning and the end of the criminal proceeding, even though those gaps were much smaller than in the current case. The defense rejected the accuser's argument that the significant reduction of the charges and offenses in the framework of the plea bargain constitutes a major compensation for the failures and omissions discovered during the trial. According to the defense, Fischer's acquittal of most of the charges stemmed from their collapse from the evidentiary aspect, in view of the lack of sufficient evidence to prove them, and sometimes even the existence of positive evidence that the offenses were not committed, and not as an act of kindness that the prosecution allegedly did to him in order to compensate him for the authorities' conduct towards him. And as the accuser's counsel confirmed at the time of the presentation of the plea bargain on August 28, 2025, the first and main reason for the accuser's arrival at the plea bargain was "Significant and substantial evidentiary difficulties", to which were added - as second-order considerations only - "Omissions, difficulties and defects discovered during the conduct of the trial" (p. 25587).
- Another central axis in the defense's arguments revolves around claims in the realm of the defense of justice and the conduct of the law enforcement authorities. Adv. Perry reviewed a long series of prohibited acts, failures and omissions that allegedly occurred in the conduct of the investigative bodies and later in the conduct of the prosecution in the first years of the proceeding, and which can point to a systematic and improper pattern of action that severely harmed Fischer's rights and his sense of justice and fairness. The defense is of the opinion that these claims, each separately and certainly all together, should have led to the dismissal of the indictment in its entirety. Since the indictment cannot be quashed at this stage, they are at least sufficient to necessitate complete avoidance of actual punishment.
'Field Trial' and Deliberate Leaks - According to the defense, the Department for the Investigation of Police unlawfully leaked sensitive investigative materials to the media, including the search video conducted on May 11, 2015, in the bedroom of Fischer and his wife, and the interrogation video of Malka from May 19, 2015. These leaks were carried out at the very same time that the Department for the Investigation of Police refused to transfer to the defense Malka's aforementioned interrogation of May 19, 2015, on the grounds that even though the indictment had already been filed, it was required to temporarily sponsor the investigation in order not to prejudice the completion of the investigation that was conducted after the indictment was filed. This did not prevent the Department for the Investigation of Police from leaking the same materials to the media, in order to fuel the flood of publications about the affair that swept the country at the time. The publications spoke of the biggest corruption scandal in the State of Israel, and presented Fischer himself as a manipulative and greedy man.The Root of Rotting in the Law Enforcement System", "Mafia Manager", "The Person Who Destroyed the Legal Profession", smuggles customers abroad, invents investigations for customers, rents cars to track them, trades information, launder money, pays bribes in the millions, and so on and so forth. These descriptions – all of which were found to be baseless at the end of the proceedings – created for Fischer a public image of Damon and Muktzez out of disgust that he had corrupted every good plot, and greatly intensified the fatal damage to his good name. The "field trial" that was held for him in the media, which intensified as a result of the leaks, was a punishment in itself even before his guilt was determined, and led to social ostracism and severe harm to him and his family. It was argued that such conduct on the part of the enforcement authorities is intolerable in a democratic state, substantially violated Fischer's right to a fair trial, and serves as an independent ground for a significant reduction in the sentence. In this context, mention was also made of the leak to the media of the recordings of the conversations and the meeting between Fisher and Hassan, and the refusal of the Department for the Investigation of Police to take action against Hassan, despite its claim that the leak was carried out by him, even though according to the agreement with the Department, Hassan was prohibited from contacting journalists (P/26, paragraph 6).