I cannot accept the defense's argument.
- In a Criminal Appeal 534/78 Cobilio v. State of Israel [Published in Nevo] (December 31, 1979) The Supreme Court referred to the broad interpretation that must be taken in the context of the word "action related to his position".
It was held as follows:
"In light of the aforesaid In the section 294(IV)(2) Please read Section 290(A), as if it says that it refers to a public servant who takes a bribe for an action related to his position, even if this action is not within his authority and even if he is not permitted to do it. The obvious interpretation of this is that the term "action related to his position" cannot coincide not only with the defined system of the employee's duties, but also with other actions that are carried out in connection with the job, even though they are outside the scope of the employee's authority, and only, as stated, there is a connection to the fact that the recipient of the bribe serves in a certain position".
And:
"It is possible that the argument that the In the section 294(IV)(2) It does not relate to cases in which an action was taken outside the framework of the employee's powers and powers, but rather to cases in which there is still no formal basis for the employee's status, such as when the letter of appointment has not yet been issued or when there are other similar deficiencies in the way of certification. This argument is not acceptable to me, since the legislature saw fit to relate to the circumstances as described, in which there is a defect in the way of appointment, by establishing an explicit provision, when it determined in section 294(d)(1) that in a bribery trial, the court will not need to claim that there was a defect or impropriety in the imposition of the position on the taker, in his appointment or in his election. Another provision relating to this matter is found In the section 294(III). It follows from this that the words "he was not authorized or authorized to perform the action" should be interpreted literally and placed, as already stated above, next to the words "an action related to his position". This means that the connection to the position does not have to be expressed specifically in an action that involves those of the employee's powers, duties or duties".