In its aforementioned response, the State Attorney's Office of Taxation and Economics presented another reason for the distinction between Fischer and Malka, which concerns the small scope of Malka's assets, which amount mainly to his apartment. However, this additional reason did not detract from the first reason presented in the response, which based the distinction between the two on the agreement reached with Malka regarding the refraining from taking forfeiture and economic enforcement proceedings against him.
- Four and a half years after the indictment was filed, new facts were discovered that intensified the perplexity surrounding the Department for the Investigation of Police refraining from adding a forfeiture request against Malka to the original indictment, while such relief was requested against Fischer.
It was the Jerusalem District Attorney's Office that reported to the court, during evidentiary hearings held on December 9, 2019 and December 12, 2019, that within the investigative material that was transferred to it (as may be recalled, several years after the indictment was filed), temporary orders prohibiting actions in assets and bank accounts against Malka that had been issued by the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court were found. These orders (N123/2) were also issued on May 7, 2015, on the same day as the temporary orders against Fischer (N59/2), at the request of a representative of the Department for the Investigation of Police. The existence of the orders against Malka was concealed from the court and the defense, both in response to the decision of May 25, 2015, in which the Department for the Investigation of Police was asked to address the temporary orders issued against Fischer against the background of his claim of selective enforcement against Malka; and in the framework of a hearing on a request submitted by Fischer for review of investigative material, in which his request to know "Were economic actions of economic assault carried out against Eran Malka prior to the filing of an indictment?", and in response to this, a representative of the Department for the Investigation of Police responded: "I have no way of knowing. In any case, this infrastructure is confidential. If you want a statement about what they did and if they did, there is an indictment and a state witness agreement... In the internal material there is no request for forfeiture and seizure of property by Mr. Eran Malka. The Social Visible Material Knows(Transcript of March 19, 2017 in the file In another appeal 47061-11-16, N5/2).