The criminal prohibition of the offense of bribery therefore serves as "A central tool in the society's struggle to prevent the abuse of public servants, the power given to them, and to maintain fairness, integrity and proper public administration(Judge Arbel in a criminal appeal 10735/04 Goldman v. State of Israel (February 20, 2006)). The offense is based on an age-old and worldwide recognition of the great danger inherent in bribery, to corrupt morals, to damage the social fabric, and to erode the public's trust in government institutions. "The perception is that this offense essentially undermines the foundations of the democratic system, including the public's trust in the government authorities, which is a "condition without which there is no condition"" (Criminal Appeal 3856/13 Goni v. State of Israel, paragraph 10 (February 3, 2014)).
The offense of bribery brokerage Section 295 Law The Penalties This includes all the prohibited acts of bribery. This Offense It is intended to equate the law of someone who commits a sin in brokering acts to give a bribe to the status of the recipient of the bribe. She is part of "A broad set of behaviors perceived as criminal offenses of bribery"In view of the extreme severity with which acts of bribery are perceived by the legislature, and with the aim "To deter public servants not to take part in acts that smell of bribery, and citizens not to dismiss public servants from accepting bribes" (Criminal Appeal Authority 5905/98 Ronen v. State of Israel, IsrSC 35(1) 728, 735 (1999)). The purpose of the offense of brokerage is therefore to protect those social values that are folded in the offense of bribery, by setting an additional 'protection factor' against slipping into bribery situations: "In order to prevent bribery, the legislature extended the scope of the criminal law, including acts of corruption that could, in the end, lead to the bribery of a public servant." (Criminal Appeal 423/72 v. State of IsraelIsrSC 27(1) 384, 388 (1973); Criminal Appeal 4456/14 Kellner v. State of Israel, paragraph 10 of Justice Hendel's judgment in the chapter dealing with the Dankner Verbin (December 29, 2015)). "The legislature was of the opinion that when the 'intermediary' receives the money from the 'giver' for the purpose of bribing a public servant, there is an agreement and identity of intentions between the 'intermediary' and the 'giver' regarding the purpose of the money, and they raise the act to the level of a perfect offense of bribery" (Criminal Appeal Authority 5905/98 Ibid., at p. 739). The Minister of Justice noted this in a discussion held in the Knesset regarding the amendment of the wording of the offense of bribery: "The agreement to commit an act of bribery constitutes corruption even if the bribe was not given, and even if at the time he expressed his consent to give the bribe, he did not intend to give the bribe. The very 'deal' between the realtor and the person for whose benefit he promises to give the bribe is entering a forbidden area and approaching very dangerous borders. And it is incumbent upon us, in my opinion, to build a fence for this as well" (D.C. 35 (5723) 207, of November 20, 1962).
- Obstruction of justice - The offense of obstruction of justice belongs to the group of criminal norms whose main purpose is "To protect the integrity of the judicial process and the integrity of legal proceedings, and to ensure the existence of a proper system of justice that is worthy of public trust" (Criminal Appeal 8721/04 Ohana v. State of Israel, paragraph 21 of Judge Procaccia's judgment (June 17, 2007)). The social value protected by the offense of obstruction of justice is therefore to maintain the purity and integrity of judicial proceedings and criminal investigations, and to prevent their failure. This is in order to ensure the disclosure of the truth and the administration of justice, which are at the basis of any legal proceeding, and especially criminal proceedings (Criminal Appeal Authority 7153/99 Elgad v. State of IsraelIsrSC 55(5) 729, 739 (2001)). These purposes led to the classification of the offense of obstruction as an offense of conduct with a special mental element, which is committed by doing something with the intention of preventing or hindering the proceeding or bringing about a miscarriage of justice, without requiring that the conduct actually cause the result of disrupting the investigation or the proceeding (ibid., at p. 743). Moreover, "Even an act that appears to be neutral when it is detached from the circumstances and the context will fulfill the behavioral element of the offense, if the circumstances of the matter accompanying it and the context in which it was committed negate its 'innocent' nature and harm the protected value of the offense" (p. 744).
- Receipt of assets obtained in crime - The offense of receiving assets obtained in a crime under Section 411 of the Penal Law, located under the Chapter 11 of the law, entitled "Damage to property". Section E lists three offenses under the heading "Stolen Assets": Receipt of assets obtained by crime (section 411); Receipt of Assets Obtained in Misdemeanor (Section 412); and possession of suspicious property (section 413). In view of the location of the offense in the chapter on offenses intended to protect property, and in light of the title of the mark to which the offense belongs, which indicates its purpose to prevent trading in stolen assets, Prof. S.Z. Feller was of the opinion that the use of the offense should be limited to situations of receiving assets with the knowledge that an offense was committed against the property. This, despite the broad wording of Section 411: "The one who receives intentionally... Anything, money, security, or any other asset, knowing that it has been stolen, extorted, obtained, or made of it in a crime", which linguistically applies to any criminal offense committed in connection with the property prior to its receipt, and does not limit the criminal prohibition to a specific type of felony offenses:
"The offenses under the aforesaid sections included in Chapter 11 of the Penal Law, which deals with damage to property – of course, to the property of others – are correlational offenses, and may be classified in the group of offenses whose social value protected by their prohibition is such property, only where the offense to which they are related is an offense with this social object only. This is because a correlational offense may infringe on the right of ownership only when the original offense is, in itself, the type of offense for which this right is the social object.