The defendants and one of the other conspirators demanded that the examinees transfer the payment to the ID card of one of the women, and the women were sent to withdraw the money at various post offices throughout the country, in order to prevent the disclosure of the defendants' details.
When the cash accumulated by one of the women reached a large amount, the defendants came to her, or sent various messengers to her, and collected the money from her, leaving 10% with her as payment for her actions. Sometimes the defendants asked the women to transfer some of the sums through cash transfers, such as withdrawals without a code.
Thus, the defendants hid and prevented those involved and the authorities from knowing who was behind the fraud and who received the profits. In this way, the same women collected about half a million shekels that reached the defendants in various ways. The defendants resorted to fraud and deception by concealing this business from the tax authorities and did not maintain books of accounts in relation to their income.
In these acts, defendants 1-2 received something fraudulently under aggravated circumstances together with the students who cheated on the exams with their help at least 951 times, and defendant 3 assisted in receiving something fraudulently under aggravated circumstances. Defendants 1-2 carried out 951 transactions with prohibited property in order to conceal their connection to it, and during the years 2019-2023 they resorted to cunning and subterfuge with the intention of evading tax regarding income in the amount of ILS 600,000.
The aggravating circumstances are the enormous scope of the fraud, the enormous sophistication of the fraudulent acts, its severe damage to the trust of the matriculation exam institution, the violation of the principle of equality, and thus the penetration of the fraudulent acts into the arms of the government through Defendant 3.
The defendants in their actions carried out an operation with prohibited property.
- Defendants 1 and 2 were convicted of the offenses detailed above after the prosecution began and as part of a plea bargain that did not include an agreement regarding the sentence.
In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the Probation Service was asked to submit a sentencing report in the defendants' case.