Certainly, the violation of these goals could not have occurred according to the position in case law and in the legal literature, cited above, which restricts the offense to receiving assets that were originally obtained through a felony offense that violated the right to property, since there is no claim in the indictment that Malka removed from the investigation file of the 'Ma'aseh Nissim' affair the original document that contained the questions that were planned to make up Biton's future investigation. and gave the source to Fischer in a way that denied the state's ownership of the document. What's more: Even according to the position that extends the offense of origin to any offense, and not only to the offense intended to protect ownership, the purpose of the offense of receiving assets obtained in a crime is to serve as a negative incentive against the original offender not to make a transaction with the property, which he obtained in the crime. Extra, thus reducing his motive to commit the crime in the first place if he knows that he is likely to encounter difficulty in realizing the property. This legislative goal therefore requires the fulfillment of two stages Separate: First stage - the stage of obtaining the property by the original offender through a felony; The second stage is the stage of transferring the property from the original offender to the perpetrator of the offense of receiving assets obtained in the crime. This two-stage process negates the violation of the protected value in the case before us, since Malka committed the crime of removing a document from custody, by means of the act of handing over the document to Fischer, and not at any previous point in time, since Malka was entitled to hold the document by virtue of being part of the police investigation team. Y.'s words are appropriate here Kugler, in his book Theory and Practice in Penal Law: Introduction and the Factual Basis (2020) 139-138:
"An event that occurred in the past is also considered a circumstance. An example of this can be seen in section 411 of the Penal Law... In the alternative of 'receiving something when he knows that the crime was obtained', the factual element actually includes the words 'by crime was obtained'. These words are circumstance. It is clear that this is not conduct, for conduct relates only to the conduct of the perpetrator himself, of the accused, and the act of objection in the crime in question here is directed at the act of another. Nor is it a consequence, for it is not an event caused by the Kabbalah. On the contrary, it is an event that preceded the reception. This is a circumstance, even though it is an event that occurred before the defendant's conduct... The event that occurred in the past has already become part of the reality that continues to exist even when the thing is received, that is, the reality that the thing that was received is something that was "achieved by crime." Therefore, it can be seen that this was achieved in a given crime as a reality that exists at the time of the conduct" (emphases added).