Caselaw

Other Appeal (Tel Aviv) 7916-03-25 Michael Penn v. Fraud Division - part 10

May 18, 2025
Print

According to Section 30 of the Legal Aid Law:

"If an object is seized, the competent authority may submit a request to the court to approve its transfer to the requesting country; The person from whom the object was taken will be summoned to the hearing of the application, as well as anyone who claims to be entitled to it, if he is known."

In Criminal Appeal 11364-03 Anonymous v.  Israel Police , IsrSC 58(5) 583 (hereinafter: the Anonymous case), it was held that:

"The provision of section 29 is complemented by section 30 of the law, which establishes the framework for the discussion of the question of the transfer of the object seized pursuant to a court order, a transfer that may involve a violation of a proprietary right."

This unique proceeding, which relates to an object (including computer material) with a proprietary aspect, differs from the usual procedure of transferring investigative materials, which does not require an additional proceeding in court in the case of the claimant claiming to be entitled to the object, and it is even different from the procedure of seizure in Israel at the request of a foreign country for the purpose of forfeiture in the future (which does not allow the transfer of the property outside of Israel), a unique procedure of the third type.

To simplify things further, I will explain that the Legal Aid Law creates three tracks:

  1. Copies of evidence materials, including copies of objects, pass through the usual route of transferring investigative materials without special restrictions (section 29 of the Legal Aid Law).
  2. Clearly prohibited property from being transferred outside of Israel (it can be seized in Israel temporarily, and not beyond that) (section 39 of the law).
  • Dual-material material - which has evidentiary and property characteristics in the same breath - can be transferred subject to the approval of the court after the position of the claimant has been heard (section 30 of the law).

As noted, it seems that this is an intermediate hierarchy that fits the definition of the reconstruction nuclei as a dual-substantial or mixed material. 

Previous part1...910
11...17Next part