Indeed, already at the time of hearing Saada's aforesaid explanation, the accuser's counsel hastened to deny his words, while clarifying: "I say that it will be clear - Eran Malka is a central pillar of the evidence in this case, this is the position of the accuser, there is no question at all" (p. 22331; See also her statement at the presentation of the plea bargain on August 28, 2025, pp. 25587, paras. 13-14). And since there is no question about this, the poignant question regarding the Department for the Investigation of Police refrains from prosecuting Malka in a separate indictment.
- SecondEven if the filing of the consolidated indictment was not enough in itself to prove the existence of hidden agreements between the Department for the Investigation of Police and the Queen prior to the filing of the indictment, the content of the indictment came and revealed it. The original indictment charged Malka and Fischer with four counts of taking bribes as part of four counts, as well as other joint offenses (including fraud and money laundering), while presenting both of them as conspirators and acting as secret partners."against various elements, all out of the unbridled greed of the two, who joined them together" (Sections 13-6); And with a request for their detention until the end of the proceedings: "Like the four arms of one criminal body, with one head" (section 16). Accordingly, the prosecutor clarified in a hearing held on July 13, 2015, in Malka's request for a reconsideration of the conditions of his detention: "The prosecution insists that Fisher and Malka committed the offenses attributed to them together" (p. 32). Despite this, the original indictment was accompanied by a request for confiscation of Fischer's property only, while no forfeiture was requested against Malka.
In response to the motions filed by Fischer in this regard, first (on May 21, 2015) to this court, and then (on June 2, 2015) to the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court, which issued ex parte a week before the filing of the indictment temporary orders prohibiting actions in property and bank accounts (Other Order 13785-05-15The prosecution replied, through the Tel Aviv District Attorney's Office (Taxation and Economics), that the issuance of the temporary orders was not tainted by selective enforcement, since "An agreement was signed between Malka and the Respondent, according to which in exchange for the information Malka would provide to the Respondent, she would not take enforcement and economic forfeiture proceedings against him regarding the matters detailed in the indictment. With this difference, the ground should be dropped from under the claim" (paragraph 47 of the response of June 10, 2015). The prosecution's use of the state's witness agreement dated June 4, 2015, in order to justify a move it took on May 7, 2015, for nearly a month Previous to the date when Malka allegedly became a state witness, and prior to the filing of the indictment, shows that when another body in the State Attorney's Office Other than the Department for the Investigation of Police He argued before the court that the true facts as to the date on which the agreements with Malka were reached were interpreted as they were from day one.