- The defendant was born in Iraq in 1957, immigrated to Israel with his parents in 1972, and after completing his studies and military service, he began his studies at the university, but a year later (in 1981) he flew to the United States, where he lived until 1995. The defendant began his professional career in the United States as a salesman in an electronics store, and later purchased a number of stores that he operated until the 1990s, when he began to operate mainly in the real estate field. In 1995, while his business in the United States was active, the defendant returned with his family and 6-year-old daughter to live in Israel, and began operating in a number of businesses in Israel as well. A few years later, the defendant decided that he was not interested in conducting business in Israel, and continued to manage most of his business in the United States, along with opening various businesses in Europe.
The defendant's summons for interrogation and the conduct of his interrogation
- The undercover phase of the investigation lasted only a few days, and on June 6, 2014, the investigation became public when Ben-Eliezer and Defendant 2 were summoned to testify.
The interrogation of Defendant 2, who already at the undercover stage had data that showed that a significant sum of money had been transferred from his account to Ben-Eliezer, began as an investigation under warning.
In contrast, in the case of Defendant 3, and although the police had data indicating the transfer of NIS 260,000 from his personal account to the receiver's account through which the plot in Nes Ziona was allegedly purchased in the name of Ben-Eliezer's son and daughter-in-law (P/278), the investigative unit chose to summon him for an "open" interrogation and not for an interrogation under warning (as a suspect).
The head of the investigation team, Superintendent Tzachi Havkin (hereinafter – Chief Superintendent Havkin), who was also present at part of the interrogation, described in his testimony that the interrogation was accompanied by an attorney from the Tel Aviv District Attorney's Office (Taxation and Economics), and that at the point in time when the defendant was summoned for interrogation, the assumption was that there was a distinction between the intensity of the suspicion that arose in relation to his actions and the intensity of the suspicion that existed in relation to defendant 2, and this distinction justified the difference in the "type of interrogation" to which each of them was summoned separately.
- When the defendant arrived at the Lahav 433 facility For the purpose of his interrogation as a witnessAt the gate, he met Interrogator Biton, who was waiting for him. There is no dispute that even before the two entered the interrogation room, and during the wait that lasted about 20 to 30 minutes in the yard, the defendant told Investigator Biton on his own initiative that he had transferred 500,000 shekels to Ben-Eliezer and beyond that he did not transfer money to him. The transfer of NIS 500,000 to Ben-Eliezer was not known to the police, so it can be seen that even before they entered the interrogation room, it was clear that we were dealing with an interrogee who transferred from his account to a serving public figure, or for the benefit of any of his family members, the sum of approximately NIS 760,000 (NIS 260,000 to the receiver's account and NIS 500,000 directly to Ben-Eliezer).
Investigator Biton described in his testimony that when this fact was revealed to him even before the defendant's interrogation, he approached Superintendent Havkin and her accompanying attorney, who decided not to change the "classification of the interrogation" and instructed him to conduct the interrogation in a manner that had been planned in advance, i.e., an "open investigation" as a "witness" that did not involve a warning to the interrogee. It should be noted that according to Investigator Biton, the accompanying attorney was present at the police facility, as was Chief Superintendent Havkin, so that the consultation was not by telephone but rather face-to-face (Prov. p. 828, paras. 19-23).