"... to the precedents relating to the punishment of those convicted of committing tax offenses, which were determined in the rulings of the courts in the higher courts, which bind him. In these rulings, it has been determined, time after time, that in tax offenses, certainly those that have an element of fraud and evasion, public consideration and the need for deterrence should be given priority over personal circumstances."
- Moreover, even the Probation Service's reports in our case cannot constitute a basis for deviation from the appropriate punishment range for rehabilitation reasons.
In this context, I would like to emphasize that the Probation Service's recommendations to suffice with a lenient sentence in the form of community service imprisonment were given at the outset, in the first report of each of the defendants, before the defendants began a therapeutic process, and even before such a plan was formulated for any of them. It is not for nothing that the Probation Service was asked to submit a supplementary report that would clarify the nature of the proposed plan for each defendant.
The Probation Service explained its punitive recommendation in the case of Defendant 1 "Because she is dealing with emotional difficulties as a result of the divorce process she went through... led a normative life, and upon receiving ... You can manage them again."
and his lenient punitive recommendation in the case of defendant 2 "Due to being a mother of small children, including her toddler son who was diagnosed with autism, which is very difficult for her, and challenges and affects the entire family unit."
It is clear that we are not dealing with rehabilitation grounds in the sense of a clause 40 min of the Penal Law, and it certainly cannot be said that imprisonment behind bars will harm the rehabilitation of any of them. Indeed, imprisonment will cause sorrow and pain to the defendants, and especially to defendant 2, but there is nothing between this and rehabilitation considerations.
- The defendants have no criminal record, it is evident that they continue to live a normative life and higher education, and like most of those involved in "white-collar" offenses, they should not be seen as "in need of rehabilitation." The proposed treatment plan can be implemented by any defendant during her imprisonment or after her release.
In this regard, see Criminal Appeal 3927/16 State of Israel v. Gershon Bar Ziv (23.2.2017):