Early planning and sophistication - Fischer's actions in the Biton affair were planned, sophisticated, prolonged, and multi-staged, and while Fischer had at his disposal a number of exit points from the criminal event that he chose not to exploit. This is not an act of momentary impulse or a one-time failure. This is in contrast to the "night meeting" charge, in which it is possible that Fischer got into the incident without prior planning on his part, and because he was under pressure as a result of the news that closed him about the success of the penetration of mobile devices.
Fischer's relative role in the commission of the offenses - Regarding this circumstance as well, according to the accuser, there is a difference between the charge of 'Biton' and the charge of 'night meeting'. While Fischer's part in the nightly meeting was not central and he did not take an active part in the events during the meeting, in the Biton affair Fischer was an active, initiator, adherent to the mission, who teamed up with a senior police officer in order to improperly promote the cause of Biton, who was close to him.
The damage that was expected to be caused and caused by the commission of the offenses - The facts of the amended indictment do not indicate a direct benefit that Fischer derived as a result of his exposure to the classified materials that Malka gave him, nor do they indicate that the questions that appeared in those materials were indeed presented to Biton when he was arrested and interrogated. The only concrete damage mentioned in the amended indictment is the postponement of the date of the "breach" from May 7, 2014 to May 19, 2014, following Biton's hospitalization on May 7, 2014. According to the accuser, this does not diminish the severity of Fischer's actions, since the offense of obstruction of justice is an offense of intent and not a consequential offense. The extent of Fischer's guilt lies in the actions he committed with the intention of preventing and thwarting Biton's investigation, and not in the extent of the effectiveness of those acts and their success in actually influencing the course of the investigation. Most of these acts were carried out at a stage when the investigation had not yet moved from the covert to the overt stage, and as such their value could not be quantified at the time of execution before it was known how the investigation would unfold and develop as the transition to the overt stage. Moreover, leaks about undercover investigations cause both topical and potential damage. They grossly violate the secrecy of those investigations, undermine their proper conduct, and impair the functioning of the investigative units and their ability to reach the truth. The same applies to the leakage of information, which at the hidden stage is supposed to be confidential to the interrogee, and its transfer to the interrogee by agents with access to the information. This is even more true in complex investigations in a unit such as Lahav 433, which require lengthy preparation, a combination of several investigative agencies, and a large investment of resources. Added to this is the damage caused by Fischer by the very attempt to send tentacles into the State Attorney's Office and influence the identity of the attorney who (not) handle the investigation of his associate (Biton), by means of a seemingly innocent offer that the same attorney participate in the tender, which was backed by a criminal intention that would ease the affair of the associate.