Caselaw

Criminal Appeal 4596/05 Rosenstein v. State of Israel P.D. S(3) 353 - part 4

November 30, 2005
Print

After the arrest of Roash and Ashkenazi became clear, Dadush met with the appellant and announced that they had to raise money for the legal representation of the two.  The appellant, so it is claimed, telephoned Cohen and told him that he suspected that the buyers and their representatives were undercover agents ( paragraph 15n of the plaintiff's affidavit; paragraph 13 of Cohen's affidavit).  At another meeting at the Hilton Hotel in Tel Aviv, in which the appellant, Dadosh and Alan, took part, Dadosh confirmed to the appellant that the buyer had been revealed to be an undercover agent.  The appellant was very angry, and in a telephone call to Cohen, who was in Spain at the time, he told him that he (the appellant) had "lost a lot of money" and that "someone would be responsible for it" (paragraph 23 of Dadosh's affidavit).

Prosecuting the members of the network

  1. The exposure of the network was made possible thanks to an intensive and lengthy investigation, both covert and overt, by the American law enforcement authorities. On the basis of the evidence accumulated during the trial, most of those involved in the affair were tried in American courts.  Roash and Ashkenazi were tried and convicted.  My letter was turned over to the United States from his residence in Bulgaria, and he was tried and convicted in September 2004.  Cohen was extradited to the United States from Spain, and convicted as part of a plea bargain; Vives, a citizen of Colombia, was also indicted in the United States (Article 15e to the plaintiff's affidavit).

On the other hand, the brothers Baruch and Alan Dadush were put on trial in Israel.  They were convicted in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court, but while their appeal was pending in the Supreme Court, they were offered to serve as state witnesses in the United States.  When they agreed, the two were released from prison and extradited to the United States.  In permitting their release, Judge Beinisch ruled:

"...  There is no doubt that the agreement was prepared for a purpose that is of the public interest of the first order.

Previous part1234
5...85Next part