(7) If he was taken in order to deviate from the line of duty in the performance of his duties or in favor of an action that the public servant was obliged to perform in accordance with his duties".
It seems that there is no difference if the bribe was In favor Doing or in favor of cessation, delaying, sensitizing, slowing down, favoring or discriminating against the contrary; in favor of a particular action or to bias in general; for the action of the taker himself or for his influence on the action of another person; and if it was taken in order to deviate from the norm in the performance of his duties, or for an action that the public servant was obliged to perform in accordance with his position.
From the aforesaid it appears that the existence of Causal connection between the bestowal and "the action related to the role of a public servant."
- The case law held that there is no need to point to a gift given to a public servant in a particular case of a particular action, since according to Article 293, it does not matter if he was in favor of a certain action or in order to bias in general.". It was also determined that there are times when a public servant is given a bribe, in the form of "Send your bread on the surface of the water, for in the end of the days you will find it(Ecclesiastes 11:1), for it is possible that one who is interested in benefiting from a public servant may one day see fit, in an improper way of giving money, to make his way to the paths of the public servant's generosity. From this, the public servant must warn himself, be careful."Criminal Appeal 355/88 Levy v. State of Israel, Piskei Din 44(3) 233].
- Since the offense of bribery is a behavioral offense, it may also take shape where the public servant did not actually act in favor of promoting the interest of the grantor (Matter Algrissi mentioned above).
- The mental element required for the purpose of establishing the offense of bribery is awareness, or at least turning a blind eye, on the part of the public servant of all the factual elements of the offense, including his awareness that the death was given in order to perform an action related to his position. Similar to the offense of fraud and breach of trust, the public servant's awareness of the factual elements of the offense of bribery is required, and this does not mean awareness of the legal consequences of the act [Criminal Appeal 4506/15 Bar v. State of Israel [Published in Nevo] (11.12.2016); Criminal Appeal 846/12 Vita v. State of Israel, [Published in Nevo] paragraph 40 (June 19, 2013); Criminal Appeal 6916/06 Atias v. State of Israel [Published in Nevo] (29.10.20072)].
It is important to note that according to case law, it is not necessary for the bribe giver to have a similar intention, i.e., the offense is perfect even if the other party is innocent of criminal intent, whether he was not aware of the bribery intent, or whether he was aware of it but did not give consideration for the benefit (Criminal Appeal 244/57 Margolin v. State of Israel, IsrSC 12 597, 601 (1958); Criminal Appeal 794/77 Hayat v. State of Israel, Piskei Din 32(2) 127 (1978)].