The defendants deceived the Ministry of Education and the public coffers in hundreds of incidents, 951 cases, but given the scope of the "advertising" actions they took on social networks, the potential for fraud was even greater.
- As detailed in the facts of the indictment, the defendants, together with the other conspirators, recruited and operated many elements in their sophisticated plan (such as the Straw Women's Network). But it is precisely the call for minors (who are about to take their matriculation exams) to take part in criminal activity that is particularly outrageous and arouses great revulsion. Leading and dragging young people into illegal activity is liable to tarnish them and, God forbid, shape their identity in the future as well. Moreover, the mass call for young people to cheat in the matriculation exams, even if some of them did not respond to it, constitutes a serious blow to their education to respect state institutions and to uphold the law.
- I have given my attention to what is stated in section 6 of the amended indictment, according to which the defendants acted together with the other conspirators and in varying compositions, and that they did not carry out all the actions detailed in the indictment alone. At the same time, I am of the opinion that the lenient weight that the defense seeks to give to this figure is excessive.
The defendants bear criminal responsibility for all the acts detailed in the indictment, which, as stated, were committed together, even if they were committed in varying compositions as detailed in section 6 mentioned above.
See in this regard Criminal Appeal 2796/95 Anonymous v. State of Israel (9 July 1997):
"The characteristic of the Tzavta operation is that it is the master of the criminal activity. He has functional-substantive control, together with the other co-operatives, over the criminal activity. It is part of a joint decision to commit the offense. It is part of the overall program
to fulfill the prohibited criminal act. He works with the other performers, so that each of them controls - together with the others - the entire activity... Its part is essential to the realization of the joint plan... Indeed, what characterizes the operations together is that together they form one hand that controls the execution."
- The fraudulent mechanism employed by the defendants, together with the other conspirators, and the factual framework described in the amended indictment, reflect a severe, broad, ongoing and systematic violation of the values of integrity by the defendants. The acts also indicate a clear disregard for state institutions and the norms of upholding the law.
- From all of the above, and after reviewing the case law to which the accuser's counsel referred, I determine that the appropriate punishment range for the offenses committed by defendants 1 and 2 in their circumstances ranges from 36 months to 60 months imprisonment alongside conditional imprisonment and a fine.
It should be recalled that the legislature set maximum penalties of 5 years in prison for the offense of Article 415 Conclusion to the Penal Law, 7 years for the offense of Section 220(5) to the Income Tax Ordinance and 7 years for the offense of Section 4 to the Prohibition of Money Laundering Law. As is well known, the determination of the appropriate punishment range must also be done in connection with the maximum punishment set by the legislature. The purpose of maximum sentences is not limited to defining the upper limit of the punitive power, but rather it expresses the moral position of the legislature. See the words of the Honorable Justice Stein in a criminal appeal 147/21 State of Israel v. Yarin Biton (February 14, 2021) and on a criminal appeal 2722/23 State of Israel v. Anonymous (9.5.2023).