Since that the event of the receipt of the classified document by Fischer Not before The event of Malka's removal of the document from state custody, but rather two actions - by Malka on the one hand and by Fischer on the other - that converged into the same single event. Fisher's action did not harm the social value protected by the offense of receiving assets obtained in a crime, even though he was accused and convicted of it. In the circumstances of the case, the offense of receiving the police document is therefore engulfed in the offense of obstruction, and no additional penalty will be imposed for it.
Applicable Sentencing Policy
Bribery Brokerage
- The Supreme Court's ruling outlined a strict punitive policy for bribery offenses. This is in light of the severity of the phenomenon of government corruption, of which bribery offenses are among the most prominent; the disgrace it imposes on the public service as a whole; and the necessity of significant punishment in the framework of the struggle against the practical manifestations of the phenomenon and the strengthening of the deterrence required to eradicate it (Criminal Appeal 267/13 State of Israel v. Levy, paragraphs 13-14 (June 23, 2013); Criminal Appeal 3609/14 State of Israel v. Elsin, paragraph 10 (October 20, 2014)). Hence the determination that as a rule, it is appropriate to impose an actual prison sentence on a defendant convicted of bribery, and only in exceptional circumstances can a sentence that carries actual imprisonment be avoided (Criminal Appeal 3961/08 Rohan v. State of Israel, paragraph 19 (October 22, 2008); Criminal Appeal 6564/04 Stoya v. State of Israel, paragraph (18.10.2004); Criminal Appeal 10627/06 Yehoshua v. State of Israel, paragraph 5 (May 8, 2007)). The strict punitive approach is correct"Towards anyone who embarks on the path of bribery – whether as a giver, as a taker or as a seeker, or as a mediator" (Criminal Appeal 341/73 State of Israel v. VitaIsrSC 27(2) 610, 613 (1973); Criminal Appeal 5806/13 State of Israel v. Ben Giat, (17.6.2014)). In addition, it was determined that the absence of a criminal record in itself does not justify a reduced sentence, since this figure characterizes every public servant until he fails to take a bribe (Criminal Appeal 10369/04 Enidger v. State of Israel (3.2.2005); Criminal Appeal 3927/16 State of Israel v. Bar-Ziv, paragraph 17 (February 23, 2017)), and that the public interest should be given priority over other considerations, while giving great weight to the consideration of general deterrence over personal circumstances (Criminal Appeal 4115/08 Gilad v. State of Israel, paragraph 37 of the judgment of Justice Grunis (January 24, 2011); Criminal Appeal 1676/14 Abu Haya v. State of Israel, paragraph 6 (June 26, 2014); Criminal Appeal 8430/11 State of Israel v. Carshi, paragraph 22 (February 15, 2012)).
- When we come to derive from the many judgments the appropriate range of punishment, the emphasis should be placed on the facts and circumstances of the case, and not on the statutory provision alone, since the principle of proportionality according to which the compound was determined requires that the severity of the offense be taken into account in the circumstances and the degree of guilt of the defendant (Section 40B of the Penal Law), and "Therefore, it is not at all impossible that the same offense will have several different punishment complexes derived from the specific circumstances in which it was committed" (Criminal Appeal 8641/12 Saad v. State of Israel, paragraph 23 (August 5, 2013); Criminal Appeals Authority 4088/13 Hadari v. State of Israel, paragraph 6 (June 11, 2013); Criminal Appeal 7655/12 Faisal v. State of Israel, paragraph 7 (April 4, 2013)). I will therefore review a number of judgments that may teach us what is the appropriate range of punishment for our case, although there are still gaps, some of which are substantial, between those rulings and the circumstances that require Fischer's sentence:
(a) Criminal Appeal 5405/21 Cohen v. State of Israel (August 24, 2022) - The Director General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, who was indicted on five charges in the Yisrael Beiteinu affair. After conducting evidence, he was convicted of the following offenses: two offenses of bribery; bribery brokerage; attempted bribery; 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; Carrying out an action on prohibited property; obstruction of justice; And threats. The sentence divided the offenses into five incidents. The Third Event Included three offenses: Attempted bribery, forgery of a document under aggravated circumstances, and false registration in corporate documents. The defendant offered the association's CEO to leverage his connections in the Ministry of Tourism and assist in obtaining a budget for the association's project, in exchange for a payment of NIS 100,000 to a company controlled by the defendant. In order to disguise his actions, he created three fictitious documents, which were falsely dated backwards and presented a false representation of the nature of the engagement, as well as a fictitious transaction invoice. The attempt was unsuccessful due to the refusal of the association's CEO to demand payment of the defendant. The appropriate punishment area for this incident was set at 10 to 20 months in prison. The defendant's sentence in all five incidents was set at less than half of the compound. The total sentence for all 15 offenses was 30 months in prison, minus the eight days of detention. The Supreme Court reduced the overall sentence and ruled that 18 months in prison. This is in view of the fact that the appellant changed his position at the stage of the appeal and took responsibility for his actions; his most significant contribution to national security; his older age (72); and his wife's health condition.