In the Olmert affair, the acts of disruption succeeded. Zaken announced that she had chosen to refrain from testifying in her defense in the case that took place in Jerusalem. As a result, it was not possible to submit the incriminating diaries through it, and this had a real impact on the verdict handed down (Olmert's acquittal of most of the charges). In addition, Zaken informed her attorney that she had decided not to sign the plea bargain in the Holyland case. The court noted in its sentencing that "This is a severe and significant blow to the protected value, in view of the risk that was on the agenda in conviction in two very serious cases, the defendant's high status as an elected official, due to the nature of what was said in the attempts to prevent Ms. Zaken from giving testimony, while abusing his power, and the defendant's influence on Ms. Zaken, which was also dependent on him financially, including at the time of the commission of the acts, as described in the indictment, and due to the achievement of the desired result – the bias of the judicial process and the prevention of the disclosure of the truth" (paragraph 4b). In contrast, in the case before us, Fischer is not an elected official or a public servant; There is no claim that any of the acts of disruption of which he was convicted actually affected the course of the relevant police investigations (other than the postponement of the "breach" date of the investigation of the "Ma'aseh Nissim" affair by a few days); In the first incident, the acts of disruption did not involve pressure or threat on the part of Fischer; In the second incident, as far as the offense of obstruction is concerned (as distinct from the attempt to broker bribery), Fisher shared information with Hassan about the police investigation being conducted against him, and did not motivate or pressure him to take an action that would disrupt the investigation.
(f) Criminal Appeal 8107/13 Cohen v. State of Israel (January 17, 2016) - The Supreme Court approved the Moving Punishment Complex Between 3 and 9 months in prison, which was determined by the District Court (Criminal Case (Beer Sheva District) 39860-03-10) for two offenses of obstruction of justice and two offenses of impeachment in an investigation for which the appellant was convicted. The appellant contacted two realtors who were residents of the Palestinian Authority, conspired with them to trade in entry permits to Israel, and asked them to remain silent during the interrogation in exchange for his help. He even sent a defense attorney to one of them. The sentence imposed on the appellant (5 years in prison) included additional charges and offenses of fraud, bribery and tax offenses. The Supreme Court reduced 6 months in prison from the total sentence (due to the retraction of the appeal against the verdict). Here, too, the aforementioned compound relate, in addition to the obstruction offenses, to offenses of impeachment in a felony-type investigation, of which Fisher was not convicted.