Caselaw

Criminal Case (Be’er Sheva) 6901-04-23 State of Israel v. Shuruk Tzaluk - part 19

January 6, 2026
Print

In our case, the necessary distinction must be made between the harsh and the stringent:

            For rulings on fraudulent offenses, see:

Criminal Appeal Authority 50075-05-25 Ron Cohen v.  State of Israel (May 22, 2025); Criminal Appeal 7621/14 Aharon Gottesdiener v.  State of Israel (01.03.2017) (in the case of the defendants: Aharon Gottesdiener, Meir Roimi and Meir Rosenthal); Criminal Appeal Sentence (Beer Sheva District) 37399-11-23 Shai Alfasi v.  State of Israel (February 21, 2024).  Criminal Appeal (Tel Aviv District) 43400-01-22 Awad v.  State of Israel (21.03.22); Criminal Appeal (Nazareth District) 49812-05-10 Kadah v.  State of Israel (07.09.10); Criminal Appeal (Haifa District) 1366/04 State of Israel v.  Yitzhak Ben Nahum Mizrahi (11 November 2004); Criminal Case (Shalom Krayot) 35941-12-20 State of Israel v.  Aharon Binyamin Moreno (19.12.2021); Criminal Case (Shalom Be'er Sheva) 50167-09-19 State of Israel v.  Amin Abu Madi'am (12.09.21).

For rulings on offenses that are not cheating that deal with exams, see:

Criminal Appeal (Tel Aviv District) 20402-11         24 State of Israel v.  Habish (09.07.25); Criminal Case (Shalom)            Haifa) 27858-05-13 State of Israel v.  Rachel Kedem (10.12.13).

For rulings on tax offenses and money laundering, see also:

Criminal Appeal Authority 7135/10 Yigal Chen v.  State of Israel (3 November 2010); Criminal Case (Jerusalem District) 50384-05-21 State of Israel v.  Kochman et al .  (December 12, 2024) (in the case of Defendant 1).

The circumstances of the commission of the offenses:

  1. The circumstances of the commission of the offenses in our case are exceptional in their severity, since defendants 1 and 2, together with other conspirators, established and managed a huge and unique venture whose sole purpose was to deceive and deceive the Ministry of Education and the tax authorities for the sake of money.
  2. It is impossible to overstate the degree of planning, organization, and methodology that characterized the wrongful acts of the defendants who managed the fraud and fraud project as if it were a "manufacturing plant", which provided, inter alia, with the following services:

"Advertising and Marketing" - See, for example, sections 10-12 of the facts of the amended indictment.

Previous part1...1819
20...30Next part