The accuser's counsel further explained that the accuser chose not to file indictments against the straw women mentioned in the indictment and who were gloves for the defendants, despite the fact that 7 of them were interrogated, out of a conscious and informed decision to prosecute the defendants, who were in the senior echelon that operated the straw women. In response to the court's question, he replied that this was a complex case and that the accuser was forced, in view of its size and scope, to define in advance the number of potential defendants that could be reached, otherwise the result would have been a "monstrous" case and the investigation would have continued to this day. Filing indictments only against those 7 straw women who were interrogated would necessarily have established a claim of selective enforcement. It was further argued that the accuser's decision in our case was reasonable and within the scope of her prerogative.
The accuser petitioned not to adopt the recommendation of the Probation Service and asked not to choose the rehabilitative punishment path, in view of the nature of the offenses and the fact that the defendants are "white-collar" criminals, educated and successful. In this context, it was argued that the fact that Defendant 2 is the mother of a child with special needs should be expressed within the appropriate punishment but not in deviation from it.
In order to substantiate her arguments, the accuser referred to case law (section 7 b-A/1, P/4, P/5 and P/6) and added that the compound in the context of cheating a test in one exam is up to one year in prison, and the compound of a person who organized cheating for three tests begins with 22 months in prison. The compounds for fraudulent offenses vary by value, but range from 25 months imprisonment to ILS 100,000 and 50 months to ILS 300,000.
- Counsel for Defendants 1 and 2 He argued that the appropriate punishment in the circumstances in our case ranged from a few months of imprisonment (which can be served with community service) to three years in prison. The defense attorney petitioned to place the defendants' sentence at the bottom of the compound, so that they would be subjected to community service alongside a deterrent suspended sentence and a high fine.
The defense attorney requested, to the extent that the court determines a harsher punishment range than the one he petitioned, to deviate from the punishment for rehabilitation considerations and to make do with prison sentences that will be served by way of community service.