"When it was decided by Y.M. Cancel F.M. Decision and to remove the significant intelligence information provided by the accomplice, without any compensation, regarding the suspect's involvement in the bribery brokerage offenses, the request was amended before it was forwarded to the judge. The relevant information was not presented in accordance with the instruction given.
The court decided to extend the detention by only one day, until tomorrow.
[Two Blackened Lines - Internal Record]
In the circumstances of the case, there is also no basis for filing an appeal.
For information.
Uri."
Sa'ada confirmed that the incident described in the document, as well as the document itself, were known to him in 2015 in real time (22993, 22997, 23395-23384). According to him, he came across the document again while publishing the State Comptroller's report from 2023 regarding the conduct of the Department for the Investigation of Police. Following the publication of the report, he combed through the materials he had kept in his home at the time in order to prove his claim regarding a conflict of interest between the Attorney General and the State Attorney. One of the materials he encountered at the time was the email correspondence dated May 10, 2015, which he printed and preserved "For a rainy day", and which was used by him in his contacts with the State Comptroller in the years 2020-2022 regarding the Comptroller's examination of the issue of conflict of interest (23003-22992).
This document is also not mentioned in the investigation file and the list of investigation material, despite the obligation imposed on the Department for the Investigation of Police, in accordance with the Attorney General's directive, to disclose to the defense at least the Existence The document, due to his involvement in negotiations with a candidate to be a state witness. This is even if you say that it was possible to avoid transferring the full correspondence for reasons of confidentiality (moreover, Saada claimed that his plan for Malka was that "When I reach an agreement with him, a state witness, everything will move to the open axis" - 22444). The document not only contradicts the explanation given by Saada for the absence of the intelligence information provided by Malka in the intelligence system of the Department for the Investigation of Police, given that it turned out that in the end the information was not submitted to the Magistrate's Court at all; But it also refutes the version of the Department for the Investigation of Police in court, as well as Sa'ada's own statement in his testimony before me, that no negotiations were conducted with Malka prior to the filing of the indictment. It is difficult to understand how the Department for the Investigation of Police chose not to share with the defense and the court the fact that Malka had given her intelligence information."Significant"regarding Ruth David's involvement in the offense of bribery, when David was not prosecuted for this offense, and incriminating information against her originating from Malka is not forwarded to the defense for review in order for it to examine the known implication of this on the question of Malka's credibility or on the existence of incriminating evidence in favor of Fischer.
- As far as the two aforementioned documents of May 10, 2015 – which, although created by the Department for the Investigation of Police itself, were discovered in an unusual way only in 2023 – are irrelevant to the explanation given in the early years of the proceeding, according to which the Department for the Investigation of Police does not document negotiations with the attorney of a candidate to be a state witness, since we are dealing with a dialogue that was conducted with Malka's attorney and not with Malka herself. Yet it was documented. This is even without requiring the fact that the alleged practice has no basis, neither under the direction of the Attorney General nor for the purpose that the duty of documentation is intended to serve.
Section 12(a) of the Directive gives voice to the duty of documentation"Negotiations with the candidate to be a state witness in preparation for concluding an agreement", without distinguishing between a situation in which the negotiations are conducted directly with the candidate and negotiations conducted with the candidate's attorney. Moreover, given that section 6 of the Directive requires negotiations with a defendant who wishes to be a state witness only through his counsel, the interpretation that the documentation obligation stated in section 12(a) of the Directive does not apply to negotiations with a representative will lead to the absurd result whereby negotiations for a state-witness agreement with defendants will not be documented at all.