Caselaw

Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 4637-12-15 State of Israel – Tel Aviv District Attorney’s Office (Taxation and Economics) v. Binyamin Fouad Ben-Eliezer (Proceedings Stopped Due to Death The Defendant) - part 157

August 28, 2019
Print

The defense sought to reject this argument for two reasons: the first reason – it was argued that the defendant's clear economic interests in Israel were not proven since some of the companies that the prosecution pointed to were not active at all, and in another part of the companies – the "activity" amounted to the registration of ownership of a real estate asset (similar to the companies of Gush Halka); The second reason – it was explained that evidence was presented according to which the defendant asked Ben-Eliezer not to run for the presidency, an action that negates, in part, the intention alleged by the prosecution.

  1. In general, and as detailed in the chapter dealing with the analysis of the offense of bribery, "consideration" is not one of the foundations of the offense of giving bribes, and the offense can be consolidated, even if the death was given.To bias in general", as it appears Article 293(3) to the Penal Law.

The Supreme Court's ruling determined that the meaning of the section is that there is no need to point to a concrete action for which the gift is given, and that there is a possibility that a public servant is given a bribe gift in the form of "Send your bread on the surface of the waters, for in the end of days you will find it.(Ecclesiastes 11:1) [see Criminal Appeal 121/88 Darwish v. State of Israel [Published in Nevo] (28.3.1991)].

The fact that there is no need to prove a concrete action for which the gift is given cannot be interpreted as turning any gift into a bribe, since the prosecution still has to prove that we are dealing with a gift given for an improper motive, i.e., a motive whose main purpose is to encourage the public servant to perform an action that may assist the giver of the gift.

  1. After examining the relevant evidence and the arguments of the parties, I have reached a clear conclusion that the prosecution's claim of a "future motive" should also be rejected.

First, and as I have clarified, I have given credence to the defendant's consistent statements as to the motive that underpinned the granting of the loan to Ben-Eliezer.

Previous part1...156157
158159160Next part