Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 35106-11-21 State of Israel v. Neta Cuneo - part 3

On July 29, 2021, at 4:52 p.m., the defendant sent Lynn a document - which was distributed on the same day by the Human Resources Division warning against accessing police systems and databases without the purpose of the job - and wrote : "It's as if they wrote it down on me.  Send on a text message...  Like the Ben Haim ruling, this is the Neta Cuneo ruling" (the defendant also sent the document to Natalie Levy, see Bat/82B).

75. In her cross-examination, Lynn was asked about her entry into the HIP file and explained that she examines many files every day, and therefore she did not remember the reason for her entry into the file, when she received her statement at the DIP. As she put it: "...I didn't know at that moment.  If I had known, I would have said.  Netta is sharp and has a good memory, she remembered, only after I was interrogated with a warning, after all the sins that caused me crazy disappointment, only then did Netta remember that there was a policeman who asked for it.  Netta discovered it.  He asked them to print for him..." (in the transcript, p.  178, line 29 ff.).
76. Lin confirmed the defense attorney's argument that the defendant had never approached her regarding the interrogation of Y.P. Kedem (in the transcript, p.  179, line 25) and later added that the defendant was a good policewoman and that her arrest and dismissal surprised her (ibid., p.  180, line 6 ff.).  However, Lin did not confirm the defense attorney's serious claims that the interrogator Yavin had sewed up a file for her because he should have known that her entry into the YLP file was under authority, and wondered: "How was he supposed to know?" (ibid., line 14).  As for the defendant's contact with her on April 5, 2021, for the purpose of clarifying the identity of the investigators on duty, Lin was asked what kind of interrogation it was about, to which she replied: "I don't remember.  Something to do with this Yossi.  I don't remember exactly what happened" (ibid., p.  183, line 20).
77. Sivan Sabag (Arami), whose statement to the plaintiffs by virtue of various laws P/84 was filed during her initial interrogation, stated that her acquaintance with the defendant was "in name and face only" (P/84, line 6).  Sivan's statement was taken on 09 August 2021 and she remembered only one short conversation with the defendant.  This was when Sivan was an investigator on duty at the station and the defendant called her and asked her to check someone according to her ID card.  Sivan did not remember any details beyond that, including the name of that person, although she confirmed that the conversation may have taken place on 05 April 2021 (ibid., line 26).  It should be noted that from the memorandum P/51 and its appendices, it appears that in close proximity to the conversation with the defendant, Sivan examined Yossi and another person, with Yossi being the suspect in the case and the other person being the victim.
78. In the cross-examination, Sivan stated that the role of an on-duty investigator includes, among other things, providing a response to field units and investigators from other divisions, and part of this is conducting checks in the system for police officers' requests (in the transcript, p. 174, line 18 ff.).  To the defense attorney's questions, Sivan described the information that can be obtained from Adam's system regarding a suspect, including alerts such as whether he is wanted for interrogation or is in custody, details of his open files, and personal information.  Sivan also noted that she had permission to enter into interrogation files, for example in order to clarify the conditions of her release (ibid., p.  175, line 11).
79. The defense attorney asked Sivan whether she had received a phone call from Lynn, but Sivan clarified that the phone was from the defendant (in the transcript, p. 176, line 6).  When asked whether she had given the defendant information about Yossi's expected interrogation, Sivan replied, "I don't remember what happened in that conversation," but added that "the chances that I told him about what he was going to be interrogated about are zero" (ibid., line 12 onwards), and later noted: "I went into the investigation file to understand whether he was summoned to the date he was summoned.  I said he was welcome.  Beyond that, I don't remember" (ibid., line 19 onwards).
80. To a specific question by the defense counsel regarding the provision of information about the suspicion attributed to Yossi and Tibo, Sivan replied: "I don't remember what I gave" (in the transcript, p. 176, line 28).  Sivan reiterated that she did not remember the content of the conversation with the defendant and even added, "It is also possible that I did not tell her that he was summoned tomorrow" (ibid., p.  177, line 8), but to the question of whether she was threatened by prosecutors by virtue of various laws that she would be interrogated with a warning, she responded: "I was informed that I was being interrogated.  It was not a threat" (ibid., line 10).  In the re-examination, Sivan clarified that the tests she conducted for the defendant, as for any other police officer, were only at the request of a police officer; as she said: "Of course, I will not check on my own.  I check what the policeman needs for his work in the field" and not on her own (ibid., line 32).
81.   Natalie Levy was interrogated, as stated, by Investigator Wilk, who on 08.08.21 took two consecutive messages from her, the second of them with a warning (P/82 and A/82).  These statements were submitted in exchange for the main interrogation, together with the file of correspondence between Natalie and the defendant (P/82B.  See the transcript, p.  185, line 13 ff.).
82. Natalie stated to the plaintiffs by virtue of various laws that she had been friends with the defendant during the period when they were both interrogators at the Jaffa station (P/82, line 10). However, she noted that she did not tell the defendant personal things, even though the defendant "tells the whole world personal things" (ibid., line 12).  Among other things, the defendant told Natalie about Yossi and told her that she thought he was a criminal, and Natalie advised her to stay away from him (ibid., line 35).  Natalie reiterated that she did not pass on any information to the defendant - except in a case where the defendant asked her what "declared supposedly" was, and she replied that there was nothing special about it (ibid., line 72 onwards) - and also noted that she did not know whether the defendant had passed on information to Yossi (ibid., line 87).
83. As part of the interrogation of the plaintiffs by virtue of various laws, Natalie transferred to Investigator Wilk her WhatsApp correspondence with the defendant (marked P/82B). As emerges from these correspondences, on March 12, 2021, at 11:56 A.M., the defendant corresponded with Natalie and told her about Yossi.  Natalie asked her to send a picture and the defendant replied: "No, Bass, because he's a criminal...  He sat in jail and such...  Check out Yossi Shmuel from Holon, 22." In a correspondence dated March 23, 2021 at 9:06 A.M., Natalie asked the defendant how she knew that Yossi was a criminal, to which the defendant replied: "Because he sat in prison on a safe and was accompanied by interest." In a correspondence dated 05.04.21 at 19:31, Natalie warned the defendant about her relationship with Yossi and even asked her why she needed it.  In a correspondence dated April 13, 2021 at 4:35 P.M., Natalie noted that the defendant's behavior was uncharacteristic, and the defendant replied: "You are right.  I have to feel on the edge, on the almost, on the border that sometimes I feel like getting caught."
84. In Natalie's further interrogation, this time with a warning, Investigator Wilk asked her why she had examined Yossi on March 22, 2021, i.e., only ten days after the defendant told her about him (see Bat/82A, lines 16, 37 and 69), even though she had never examined Yossi beforehand. However, Natalie repeatedly denied that she had given any information to the defendant.  She added that for every investigation she conducts, there is a reason and it can be checked in the police systems (ibid., line 80), and she will do so immediately after the investigation (ibid., line 99).  Shortly thereafter, Natalie conducted the examination and found that on March 22, 2021, a report about Yossi had been distributed from the district to the Jaffa desk, and she informed Investigator Wilk of this (see memorandum P/80).
85. In her cross-examination before me, Natalie confirmed that she was very surprised that she was summoned - after the completion of collecting her statement - for further interrogation with a warning (in the transcript, p. 186, line 2).  Natalie expressed great anger at this interrogation (ibid., p.  188, line 2 ff.) and also confirmed the defense attorney's claims that they tried to exert pressure on her (ibid., p.  190, line 12) or to harm the defendant (ibid., p.  192, line 16).  Natalie stated that she conducted the examination (the subject of the memorandum P/80) immediately after the interrogation in order to "clear my name" (ibid., p.  188, line 20) and clarified that she had passed on her correspondence with the defendant to the investigator, even though she was not presented with a warrant, because she did not want people to think that she had something to hide (ibid., p.  191 line 9).
86. The prosecution's case - the defendant's statements:
87. The six warning statements, which were taken from the defendant during the DIP investigation, as well as their transcripts, were submitted to me as part of the prosecution's case; Let us now turn to their review. The notices were all collected by Investigator Kalinsky, with the participation of investigators from prosecutions under various other laws.

• Notice of 21.07.2021 - P/1:

87. In this first statement, the defendant was interrogated on suspicion of fraud and breach of trust, for providing police assistance to citizens in violation of the law and using the police systems illegally. At the beginning of the statement, the defendant described her long service in the police since 2003 and the various positions she held, first on a tour of Haifa and then in interrogations at the Jaffa station.  The defendant said that as part of her current position, in the Tel Aviv registry, she provides a response to citizens who contact and inquire about investigation files and licenses, and noted that in her position she does not have permission to have a criminal PLA system, but only a traffic PLA.  To the interrogator's question whether she had dealt with requests from relatives or acquaintances, the defendant replied: "Not that I am aware, I check a lot of people every day" (P/1, line 25) and added that in such situations "I refer to the relevant party" (ibid., line 28).
88. The defendant spoke about her relationship with Yossi, and when the interrogator asked what she knew about him, she said: "He works in renovations and also in the exchange" (P/1, line 64). When asked whether she knew Tal Mizrahi, the defendant replied: "I don't know, but I think he was involved in an accident with Yossi in May" (ibid., line 68).  This is the accident that is the subject of the third indictment).  The defendant stated that Yossi had told her about the accident and said that someone had entered into them, and noted that Yossi knew that she was serving in the ATAN in a civil case, but they did not discuss the nature of her job (ibid., line 93 ff.).  The defendant claimed that she had decided to cut off contact with Yossi, since "when I checked the traffic bag and saw the juice of the garbage, I decided to cut off contact" (ibid., line 102).  Later, the defendant added that she saw "that he had a lot of files on the PLA.  I didn't go into a criminal record because I know it's forbidden and it was a regular check to see the traffic file and I saw all the PLA files and I was shocked" (ibid., line 110 onwards).
89. The defendant denied that there were incidents in which Yossi or Tal Mizrahi asked her for help as a police officer (P/1, line 134 onwards). Regarding the accident incident, the defendant said that "it was not a specific examination regarding the accident, it was as if at the level of the report that I explained to him what he should do" (ibid., line 145).  The defendant was asked whether there were other cases in which she assisted Yossi in his conduct vis-à-vis the police, in the context of traffic, and she replied that she was sure not (ibid., line 163).  To the question of whether Yossi had asked her to check the status of the accident file, the defendant replied in the negative, claiming that she had done so as part of her work.  When the interrogator wondered how it was in the course of the work, the defendant said, "I had a call to check" (ibid., line 174).
90. However, later in the interrogation and in the context of the incident of the report (the subject of the fifth indictment), the defendant said that Yossi "called me, I think it was at the time the report was registered, and I told him to ask him... If you can talk to him.  It wasn't to help or try to make an impact.  It was just to see if the policeman could be asked to exercise discretion in the given situation...  It was really not for the purpose of helping him or taking advantage of my status as a policewoman" (P/1, line 190 onwards).  The defendant confirmed that she later spoke on the phone with the policeman, Sergeant Kadosh, but claimed that she did not remember how she got to him, due to the passage of time (ibid., line 239).
91. Even when the defendant was slammed for sending the text message she sent to Sergeant Kadosh - in which she wrote, "Adir, see if there is a possibility that [m]volunteers will release Yossi" (P/62) - she repeatedly claimed that she did not intend to influence him, "nor did I know Yossi's criminal background at the time, I did not think properly and allowed myself to write such a message and I regret it... This too was late at night after I had drunk wine and apparently that is how I allowed myself" (P/1, line 281 onwards).  It should be noted that when the defendant was shown a body camera video of Sergeant Kadosh, in which one of her conversations is also heard, she said, "This is a maniac policeman...  He doesn't understand, he's with her," and added that if he had understood that she knew him, he "wouldn't have recorded" (ibid., line 413 ff.).
92. The defendant claimed that it was only recently that she found out that Yossi was a criminal (the notice was taken on July 21, 2021), although she eventually confirmed that she knew about Yossi's arrest in the Ayalon area in April, shortly after the incident with Sergeant Kadosh (P/1, line 298 onwards). The defendant stated that Yossi "suddenly disappeared for a few days" and thus she discovered that he had been arrested and that "a criminal had fallen upon me" (ibid., line 329 ff.), and later added that he had told her that he was suspected of the riots (ibid., line 434).  To the interrogator's question as to why the defendant continued to meet with Yossi, she replied: "This meeting a month ago was after a very long time when he says that he misses him and I cut off the emotion" (ibid., line 456 ff.).

• The notice dated 02.08.21 - P/1A:

93. The second statement was taken from the defendant about two weeks later, and the suspicion against her was also extended to disrupt the investigation by deleting evidence on her mobile phone. The defendant stated that she became aware that Yossi was a criminal following the incident of the report (dated 01.04.2021), when "I went into the computer to check on a traffic ticket for him and saw a huge amount of PLA files and was frightened by it" (P/1A, line 12 onwards).  To the interrogator's question as to how she discovered that Yossi had been arrested, the defendant replied: "He disconnected for a while and that was it, and when he renewed contact he told me that he was under arrest" (ibid., line 26 ff.).
94. To the question of when she was last in contact with Yossi, the defendant replied that after Yossi was at her house in June, he kept courting her, even though she told him that she was not interested (P/1A, line 29 onwards). However, when the defendant was accused of sending a message to Yossi on July 26, 2021 - a few days before the receipt of the notice P/1A - the defendant explained that she had asked him to "get back to me because I had things with him" (ibid., line 34).  The defendant went on to explain that it was Yossi who "got angry [with] me andblocked me because of that I sent him a message by SMS" (ibid., line 39 ff.).
95. When the investigator slammed the defendant in a WhatsApp group of friends, she wrote that she thought Yossi was a criminal, even before the incident of the report, she replied: "Because maybe he had the look" (P/1A, line 74). When asked how screenshots from the arrest hearing in Yossi's case reached her phone, the defendant replied that Yossi had sent them to her in order to show her that he was not guilty (ibid., line 99 ff.).  The defendant explained the deletion of correspondence with Yossi by the fact that she tends to delete correspondence with men due to past traumas (ibid., line 51 ff.).  Later, the interrogator wondered why the defendant deleted the correspondence with Yossi while she did not delete correspondence about him with her friends, a behavior that gives the impression that she deleted only the correspondence with Yossi.  The defendant said: "I delete all my correspondence with individual people, leaving only groups...  Only groups and children I do not erase" (ibid., line 114 ff.).

• The notice dated 04.08.21 - P/1B:

96. In this statement, the defendant was suspected, for the first time, of having "provided classified police information to various criminal elements and of having compiled weapons trafficking files." In response to the suspicions, the defendant replied that "I have nothing to say" (P/1B, line 15); And when asked how many tests she conducted on or for Yossi in the police systems, she told the investigator: "You have it all" (ibid., line 23). The defendant confirmed that she was not instructed to perform the tests, claiming that she had made them out of curiosity (ibid., line 26 ff.).
97. The defendant noted that she had conducted tests on Yossi in the Adam system - where, as stated, it is possible to see information about the PLA files, including the file number, date, type of file and its status, as well as the offenses that are the subject of the suspicion and the identity of the investigating unit (P/1B, line 37 onwards) - and also confirmed that she had examined other people. To the question of whether the tests were carried out outside the framework of the work, the defendant replied, "There is no response" (ibid., line 45).  The defendant confirmed that she knew that Tal Mizrahi was involved with Yossi in the accident, but denied that she had met Tal.  When the interrogator asked, "Never?" said the defendant "maintains the right to remain silent" (ibid., line 62 ff.).  From then on, the defendant repeated this response in most of the questions she was asked, after she commented: "You are against me, so I do not want to cooperate" (ibid., line 75).
98. It should be noted that the defendant maintained her right to remain silent even when she was subjected to very serious suspicions, related to the investigation of the YLP Kedem regarding arms trafficking. Thus, the defendant did not answer the question about the tests she carried out on those involved in the arms trade (P/1B, line 166), and thus the defendant did not answer the questions of whether she received money in exchange for the information she provided (ibid., line 184).  The defendant reiterated that the interrogators were against her, and sought to intensify the suspicions in order to "reach other people through me or something like that" (ibid., line 202).  The defendant did not address the questions asked in a substantive manner and only said, "I did not provide any information" (ibid., line 212).

• The notices dated 05.08.21 (Exhibit 1C) and of 08.08.21 (Exhibit 1D):

99. In the statement P/1C, the defendant persisted in her silence, again despite the harsh suspicions leveled at her regarding the disruption of the investigation of the YLP Kedem regarding the arms trafficking. The defendant did not respond in a substantive and specific manner to the questions that were asked, but only said, in general, that she was innocent and that she had been wronged.  This is what the defendant did in the statement P/1D, when she did not respond to the questions even when she was hurled with a lot of concrete evidence.
100. The interrogator played the defendant her conversation with the barber Daniel Shaul (Exhibit 1D, line 17) and asked why she had shared classified details from the police system with him, and how she knew at the time that Yossi would be arrested. The defendant did not answer these two questions (ibid., line 25 ff.), as well as the question regarding the "weapons gang's knowledge" of their premature arrest (ibid., line 34 ff.).  The interrogator showed the defendant the fact that Tal Mizrahi's ID number was on her phone, and asked her why she needed it.  The defendant did not respond to this question (ibid., line 71), and she did so even when she was shown a photocopy of the indictment and a summons to trial of Daniel Shaul, which was found on her phone (ibid., line 105).
101. The defendant was also presented, during the collection of the notice P/1D, photocopies of investigative materials from the investigation of the accident incident (the third indictment), including a photocopy of an action report, to which she also did not respond (P/1D, line 112 onwards), and this is how she behaved with regard to the photograph of the list of the fel files."A of Tal Mizrahi from the Editorial Board of Adam (ibid., line 126 ff.). At this point, Lin was brought into the interrogation room, and the defendant told her: "They're sewing files here, don't believe them" (ibid., line 150).  The defendant was accused of embroiling her friend in the investigation, and she responded, "They are liars" (ibid., line 154 and below).
102. Later in the interrogation, the interrogator explained to the defendant, at length, that she should cooperate in the investigation. In response, the defendant said: "After your long, heavy and tedious speech, I repeat, I am innocent.  I cooperated fully in my previous investigations, when I saw that you were going in the direction of sewing files, accusing me of things I didn't do and you can never prove that I did, so here I'm not cooperating, it's yours to prove, not mine...  I am no different in my computer checks from any other police officer in the Israel Police, from any of my colleagues in the Traffic Division" (P/1D, line 272 ff.).  However, the defendant reiterated the questions asked, claiming that in her first statement she did not consult with an attorney and therefore "it is possible that my answers from the pressure and not consulting a lawyer were not fully accurate, but I certainly did not lie" (ibid., line 293).
103. Later on, the defendant raised the innocent explanation for Lin's entry into one of the investigation files of Y.P. Kedem (P/1D, line 313 ff.).  Regarding the tests she performed for Yossi, the defendant said: "When Yossi calls me to the office and asks about a traffic file, I check him like any other citizen of the State of Israel" (ibid., line 347).  She explained the tests she did to Tal Mizrahi by saying that she conducted them "when he apparently called" (ibid., line 375); And when asked if it was possible that Yossi and Tal had called her hundreds of times, she replied: "It could be" (ibid., line 383).  The defendant explained the fact that Tal's ID card was stored on her mobile phone by saying that "Yossi brought it to me" (ibid., line 387), and the things about Yossi that she told the book Daniel Shaul claimed that she had heard from Yossi himself - and this was not information she had extracted from the system (ibid., line 449).
104. In the context of the examinations of the first indictment, the interrogator presented the defendant with photocopies of the lists of the PLA file of Tal Mizrahi and Yossi, from the Adam system, which she sent to Yossi on July 1, 2021, in which it can be seen that one of the files is from the Oz Kedem station, which was opened on suspicion of illegally purchasing or possessing weapons. It should be noted that according to the data in the photograph (p.  8), the case was opened on June 29, 2021, with the photograph taken by the defendant on July 1, 2021.  The defendant claimed that she did not see these figures because "I did not look at it, I looked at a traffic file" (P/1D, line 479).  With regard to the photograph of Yossi's announcement as "definitely declared", the defendant claimed that she photographed the announcement so that "it would be etched in my memory" (ibid., line 485).  The defendant added that "this is not classified information, nor is it the fact that it has been declared...  And every second offender today is certainly declared, and this has no superfluous significance" (ibid., line 493 ff.).
105. The interrogator also presented the defendant with a photocopy of Yakir Maimoni's list of PLA files, which was in her possession. The defendant explained that this was a man with whom she was in contact and he "told me that he had been arrested, he wanted to know what he was about.  I remember checking, I didn't see it as a violation of the law or classified information.  I didn't know it was forbidden to take pictures.  I didn't go into any investigation file..." (P/1D, line 633 onwards).  The interrogator asked the defendant whether she had told Yakir why he had been arrested, and she replied that "he knows," although she later added that Kikir had "taken an unnecessary shortcut" and also confirmed that she had sent him the photograph (ibid., line 637 ff.).  As for Assaf Ben Shmuel, the defendant said that she had known him for many years, back in Haifa, and he received a report and asked her to check whether his driver's license had been revoked.  The defendant confirmed that she had conducted examinations in his case and also "showed him that his R.P.  was registered as his obligation, but that it was closed due to lack of evidence" (ibid., line 725).
106. The investigator presented the defendant with the first examination she conducted in Yossi' s case, on April 4, 2021. The defendant claimed, "I wanted to check for him on the traffic ticket" (P/1D, line 682).  The interrogator responded by saying that he thought so, too, but then found her correspondence with Lynn on April 5, 2021, regarding the incident of Yossi's interrogation in the assault case (the subject of the second indictment).  To this, the defendant responded: "He was summoned for interrogation and I wanted to know what he was talking about.  I did not intend to disrupt and I did not intend to destroy or anything" (ibid., line 685).  The interrogator asked the defendant whether she had told Yossi what he was going to be interrogated about, and the defendant replied that Yossi "already knew" that he was going to be interrogated "about the assault" (ibid., line 687 ff.).  The interrogator therefore asked the defendant why she had to check what Yossi was going to be interrogated about, if he had already been told the matter, and she replied: "Just.  I do things sometimes for no reason.  I want it to be recorded that we see that on Wednesday in Yossi's PLA file, the files for which he was arrested after a week are not recorded.  This is a secret investigation" (ibid., line 695 ff.).  As for the interrogators on duty, whose numbers the defendant received from Lynn, the defendant claimed that she did not remember what she had spoken to them (ibid., line 708 ff.).
107. 00The interrogator presented the defendant with the long lists of tests she had conducted in the case of Yossi and Tal Mizrahi, and asked her whether this was a reasonable amount. The defendant replied: "According to the level of the telephones" (P/1D, line 765).  Later on, when the interrogator presented to the defendant that on May 31, 2021, she checked Yossi and Tal four times, the defendant said: "Apparently they called four times that day" (ibid., line 799).  As to the fact that she also took out investigative materials from the accident file and sent the photographs to Yossi, the defendant explained that it was "in a more personal way what was called" (ibid., line 802).  In the case of Omri Weil, which the defendant examined twice, the defendant claimed that she did not know why she did so (ibid., line 770).

0

• Notice of 09.08.21 (P/1E):

108. This statement is the last to be taken from the defendant by the DIP, and the suspicions leveled against her also included suspicions of aiding and abetting the arms trade, in addition to the previous suspicions. In her initial response to the suspicions, the defendant said: "I do not have a classification level to view classified material, I do not have permissions to view classified material" (P/1E, line 10).  The interrogator reminded the defendant that in the previous interrogation (P/1D) he showed her that on May 31, 2021, she checked Yossi and Tal four times.  The interrogator now told the defendant that on June 1, 2021, she had again photographed Yossi's list of PLA files, from the Adam system, and asked what was the need for this only one day after she had examined Yossi four times.  The defendant said, "My computer must have gotten stuck" (P/1E, line 18), although later she claimed that she did not remember.
109. When the interrogator accused the defendant that on June 3, 2021, she had again checked Yossi's files and demographic information, i.e., she had conducted a sixth examination in four days, the defendant claimed that she had done so because "he had called many times to check" (P/1E, line 34). The interrogator told the defendant that in the traffic case she had also issued investigative materials, and beyond that, she examined Yossi's statements, and she said: "Just out of curiosity.  I have no mental or factual basis or intention or strong desire to do anything" (ibid., line 43).  The defendant gave similar answers in relation to additional tests of Yossi that she performed in the same month (June 2021) and in July, while noting that she wanted to know if he was being summoned for interrogation, when Yossi also "did not understand why he was not called for interrogation" (ibid., line 145).  As for Yossi's 12-page photographs, the defendant said: "After he was at my station he forgot to take it, so I took a picture and sent it to him" (ibid., line 45).
110. As for the weapon test she conducted (in the context of the weapons license incident), the defendant said: "I did not check anything secret, I do not have permissions to do so... There was no intention to arm the weapon itself and nothing was done with the weapon itself.  It was just a frivolity that following a conversation about a weapon that the security guard had in a movie we saw, it was a result of that.  It had no purpose or content or intention whatsoever" (P/1E, line 159 onwards).
111. The defendant later explained: "We saw a movie with a security guard who had a certain type of weapon. Yossi argued with me about registered weapons and about types of weapons, and I showed him, I told him that here, let's say about each one is registered, his type, everything" (P/1E, line 180 onwards).  The interrogator wondered why the defendant had sent Yossi not only a photocopy of Yehezkel's firearms license, but also the photographs of his demographic information and contact details, and the defendant replied: "It came together, there is no special reason" (ibid., line 187).  The interrogator asked the defendant whether now, when she knows that Yossi has dealt in weapons, she understands that this puts her in the cycle of crime.  The defendant said that Yossi was only a suspect and "it really doesn't put me in the circle of crime.  One test without committing any offense?" (ibid., line 194).
112. The defendant was also interrogated about telephone conversations she had after her first interrogation, in which she gave content from the interrogations, even though she was prohibited from speaking about the interrogation under the conditions of the bail, and the defendant claimed that she did not know that she was forbidden to speak about the interrogation (P/1E, line 287). The interrogator asked the defendant, regarding her conversation with Liora, why she saw fit to share details about the interrogation with her, and the defendant replied: "I am a person who shares things with people and I did not know that it was forbidden" (ibid., line 312).  Regarding her statement to Liora that Tal was angry with her, the defendant explained: "Because I received a ban from him, so I had a feeling" (ibid., line 318).
113. In the context of the conversation with Natalie, the interrogator asked the defendant why she said she was calm because prosecutors under various laws only checked for March to May, and she answered: "I'm not calm, I told what the interrogation was about, March to May" (P/1E, line 349). At the end of the interrogation, the defendant said that she denied that she was connected to one crime cell or another, and added: "I deny the suspicions that I passed on information to such and such people about the PLA files that were opened against them.  My arguments are that they knew about it before" (ibid., line 409).
114. The Defense Case - The Defendant's Testimony:
115. The defendant chose to testify and therefore testified in court at the beginning of the defense case. In her main testimony, the defendant referred at length to her personal circumstances and her serious complaints against the DIP, and also described in general terms her work during the period relevant to the indictment - although she did not specifically address the specific charges and the specific facts alleged in each of the charges.
116. As at the beginning of her first statement (P/1), the defendant described her long service in the police and the various roles she held. The defendant claimed, in this context, that every day she would receive more than 100 inquiries from citizens, as part of her job (in the transcript, p.  216, line 26).  According to her, anyone could contact her with requests for information, and she would provide information based on her name or ID number, when she was unable to know who the applicant was and whether he was, for example, a criminal.  However, the defendant emphasized that any information she would have provided was unclassified information (ibid., p.  217, line 5 onwards).  The defendant described Yossi as "a guy with whom I was in casual contact" (ibid., p.  218, line 11).
117. The defendant described her strained relationship with her ex-husband Eran, including the circumstances of their divorce and the indictment she filed against him under various laws. According to the defendant, since the divorce, the ex-wife has sought revenge on her in every possible way, including by filing complaints with the police (in the transcript, p.  217, line 31 ff.).  The defendant stated that she thought that the investigation against her began because of the ex-husband's request, together with his commander in the VIP unit (S.C.  Abutbul) (ibid., p.  218, line 13), and later "in April, my ex-husband's lawyer...  He wrote a false letter about me asking to release some criminal from the detention of a gang of burglars..." (ibid., line 14).  The defendant stated that "I don't remember a bit," but later clarified that the letter from Adv. Carmeli (P/16) referred to the fact that "I asked to release a detainee named Tal Mizrahi" (ibid., line 28).
118. The defendant described at length the difficult experiences she underwent during her detention for interrogation purposes and the vulnerability she experienced due to the media and social media publications that accompanied the arrest. Incidentally, the defendant hurled various accusations against the prosecutors under various laws - including intensifying suspicions and tailoring an investigation, for which she stopped cooperating in her interrogations - but also at the judge who heard the request for an extension of her detention (ibid., p.  219, line 23 ff.).  The defendant emphasized that the publications in her case also included offensive and baseless gossip.  The defendant also complained about the violation of her privacy caused by the eavesdropping of her private conversations, even though at the same time she described herself as a "colored person", conducting personal conversations with a circle of friends that was "relatively large and diverse" (ibid., p.  220, line 26 ff.).
119. The defendant elaborated on the description of the heavy prices she paid and continues to pay to this day, following the investigation and the filing of the indictment, prices that she claims are inconsistent with "the acts I did, which were in fact my daily work in my role as a police officer" (ibid., p. 222, line 28 ff.).  The defendant further stated that "following all the invasion of privacy that they made to me and those close to me, I filed a complaint" (ibid., p.  223, line 1), and later noted that "I also filed a civil lawsuit against plaintiffs by virtue of various laws and other factors" (ibid., line 8).
120. At the beginning of the cross-examination, the defendant confirmed the correctness and truthfulness of what she had stated in her statements during the interrogation of prosecutors by virtue of various laws (in her six statements, P/1 to P/1E) - a version that once again emphasizes the lack of basis for the defendant's request, at the beginning of the trial, to conduct a minor trial (in the transcript, p. 224, line 2 onwards).  The defendant also confirmed her long service in the police, including as an investigator in criminal investigations, as well as the privileges she had in the police information systems.  To a specific question by the prosecutor as to whether she confirms that she has carried out all the tests described in the facts of the indictment, the defendant replied: "There is no dispute" (ibid., line 21).
121. The plaintiff referred the defendant to a document from the Human Resources Department datedJuly 29, 2021, which the defendant sent to Natalie and Lynn - a document that warns against entering police systems and databases without the purpose of the job, and specifies examples such as a prohibition on checking for a family member or friend - and the defendant confirmed that the document did not update her (in the transcript, p. 227, line 4).  Later, the defendant also confirmed, in response to the prosecutor's question, that she knew that the entrances to the police information systems were documented (ibid., p.  228, line 13).
122. When asked by the prosecutor how the defendant found out that Yossi was a criminal, she replied: "You told me he was a criminal" (in the transcript, p. 229, line 3).  The prosecutor therefore slammed the defendant, who already in her first statement stated that she understood that Yossi was "the juice of the garbage" when she examined the accident file.  The defendant did not answer this question in a substantive manner, but rather claimed that she was under pressure during the interrogation and that she was concerned about the conduct of the DIP, when she claimed that "you turned me into a criminal, when to this day I do not know who I harmed" (ibid., line 28).
123. The prosecutor later accused the defendant that from the first day she met Yossi she already knew he was a criminal, and the defendant replied: "I didn't know. What difference does it make?" (ibid., p.  230, line 31).  The plaintiff therefore accused the defendant of her correspondence with Natalie, in which she told her - on March 12, 2021, only one day after she met Yossi - that he was a criminal.  The defendant claimed that this was a private correspondence with a friend, using "codes" regarding the types of men (ibid., p.  231, line 7 ff.), but when the prosecutor referred her to the fact that in another correspondence Natalie asked her how she knew that Yossi was a criminal, and she replied that he was in prison, the defendant returned to her complaints against the brain.Q.  The defendant then explained: "I told her that he was sitting in prison and we see that this is a metaphor for a criminal" (ibid., line 31).  However, the defendant confirmed that during the contact between them, Yossi was arrested, although she claimed that she did not remember how she knew this (ibid., p.  232, line 8).
124. The defendant said, in the context of the accident, that "after Yossi made the accident, I took him hand in hand to the Tel Aviv District Police... And I helped him as I help everyone" (in the transcript, p.  234, line 14 ff.).  However, when the prosecutor slammed the defendant who had examined Yossi close to the incident of the report, she confirmed it; And in her words: "I met Yossi on March 11, 2021.  He was given a traffic report on 01.04.21.  Thursday night.  My first entry into the systems for Yossi was on April 4, 2021, following the traffic report that was given to him on April 1, 2021" (ibid., line 24 onwards).
125. The defendant had difficulty explaining the multiple tests she conducted in the case of Yossi and his friends, and claimed that she had provided information following telephone calls. To the plaintiff's question as to whether all of these had indeed called her, the defendant replied "probably" (in the transcript, p.  235, line 26).  Later, the defendant did not reply in a substantive manner, claiming: "They called me following your accusations, that I am a liaison to a gang of safe burglars, a group of arms dealers" (ibid., p.  236, line 5 onwards).  The defendant also had difficulty responding when the prosecutor accused her of her remarks, in the DIP investigations, that she had examined Yossi out of curiosity.  The defendant denied the allegations and at the same time said that she could agree that "there was something unethical in my conduct" (ibid., p.  237, line 1 ff.).  Later on, too, the defendant did not address in a substantive manner the reason for the multiple tests she conducted on Yossi and his friends, and reiterated that if she checked, "they probably called" (ibid., p.  238, line 12).
126. The prosecutor accused the defendant of knowing that Yossi was involved in the affair, and the defendant denied this. The defendant confirmed that she was asked by the plaintiffs by virtue of various laws why she, as a police officer, had contact with a criminal and that "it is true that it should not have happened", but if Yossi had been involved in the affair he should have been arrested (in the transcript, p.  239, line 5 ff.).  Later, in response to the plaintiff's question as to why she had sent Yossi the list of Tal Mizrahi' s PLA files, the defendant said: "Because this is a case in which he was involved" (ibid., line 14) and even claimed that she was entitled to transfer information about open files to another person as well (ibid., line 28).  Later on, when the prosecutor accused the defendant that she had entered the Adam system to see a list of PLA files, the defendant said that she could not access those involved in the cases.  When the prosecutor wondered how she knew that Yossi had files under investigation but did not know what she was talking about, the defendant said: "I don't remember.  The question is too general" (ibid., p.  240, line 7).
127. The defendant confirmed that on April 4, 2021, she entered Adam's system, took a photo of Yossi's list of files and forwarded the photograph to Yossi on WhatsApp (in the transcript, p. 241, line 12), and as stated, this list includes material data regarding the files.  The defendant further claimed: "There is no problem in passing on this information to that person.  It's a proper process, it's okay.  That person is exposed to this information.  There's nothing wrong with what I passed on to him.  It is certainly not criminal" (ibid., line 22 ff.).  Later, the plaintiff presented the defendant with the numerous checks she had carried out in Yossi's case, every few days (see Appendix 3/23), and accused her of following the progress of the investigation in his case.  The defendant replied: "So I tell you that all these tests were carried out as part of my work, like all the tests I have carried out hundreds or dozens of times on many other civilians..." (ibid., p.  242, line 30 ff.).
128. The prosecutor further accused the defendant that it can be seen that she followed the development of the investigation because she knew how to tell the plaintiffs by virtue of various laws that on April 4, 2021, they did not see the files for which Yossi was subsequently arrested because it was a secret investigation (in her statement P/1D). The defendant replied that the interrogation was conducted after a weekend in detention and after charges were leveled against her, and therefore "I felt I had to explain myself...  So I just added and said that there are investigations that are not even seen in the human system" (in the transcript, p.  243, line 14 onwards).  Later, the defendant moved on to the accusations against the prosecutor and the DIP: "You see, I'm here all the time, you've made me an arms dealer, a member of a group of criminals..." (ibid., line 18).
129. The prosecutor presented the defendant with the indictment, which was filed following the investigation of Yelp Kedem (against Yossi, Tal Mizrahi and Omri Weil), which dealt with weapons offenses (as described by Superintendent Kogan in his testimony). Against this background, the prosecutor claimed that it was strange that on June 15, 2021, the defendant checked Yehezkel's list of weapons licenses, and his demographic information, and passed on this data to Yossi.  The defendant confirmed that she did pass on the information to Yossi, but according to her, it was not for the purposes of an offense; As she put it: "At the time, I didn't know he was a suspect, as you say, for weapons offenses.  Second, a person loves guns...  Part of our discourse of our relationship was also about weapons...  I filmed and sent it to him as part of our small talk" (in the transcript, p.  246, line 1 onwards).  Later, the prosecutor asked the defendant why Yossi would want to know how a weapon was registered, to which she replied: "So I didn't deal with it.  That was part of the issue we had.  Once again, it brings me back to every stone you have turned on me...(ibid., p.  248, line 10 ff.).
130. The plaintiff presented the defendant with a photograph of the list of PLA files that the defendant sent to Yossi on July 1, 2021 - in which, as may be recalled, you can see a new file from the Oz Kedem station, on suspicion of illegal purchase or possession of weapons, which was opened on June 29, 2021 - and asked her why she conducted multiple checks in Yossi's case every few days after this date. The defendant replied: "Okay, so I check hundreds of files a day" (in the transcript, p.  249, line 8).  The prosecutor asked the defendant about the examinations she conducted in the case of other people involved in addition to Yossi and showed her a photocopy of Tal Mizrahi's list of PLA files, which she gave to Yossi.  To the prosecutor's question as to why she gave the photograph to Yossi, the defendant replied: "Because he was probably with him" (ibid., p.  250, line 11).  The prosecutor also presented the defendant with the list of Nachman Apte's PLA files, which the defendant also sent to Yossi, and the defendant confirmed this (ibid., line 32).
131. The prosecutor accused the defendant that she had given the list of Tal's PLA files to Yossi on July 1, 2021, after discovering that there was a new weapons file, but the defendant responded: "You are saying that I found out that there is a new miracle file. Do you establish a fact on what basis?(ibid., p.  251, line 3), and later claimed that "as part of my work, I also deal with things that are not related to the Traffic Division." In response to the plaintiff's questions, the defendant confirmed that she also passed on information to Yakir Maimoni and Assaf Ben Shmuel, and added that the investigation into these two shows that prosecutors by virtue of various laws sought to "turn over every stone" and to attach to her "every person who has ever been in prison or in a criminal investigation" (ibid., line 30 ff.).
132. As for the incident of Yossi's interrogation in the assault case (the subject of the second indictment), the prosecutor asked the defendant what the content of her conversation with the investigator Sivan was, and she said: "I don't remember. I just remember that it was to help in my field of ability in my slot without committing a criminal offense or anything.  As part of the fact that I'm a police officer, people, neighbors ask me for help" (in the transcript, p.  252, line 30 ff.).  The prosecutor also asked whether the matter was that the defendant had arranged a skydiving with Yossi (as indicated by her correspondence with Lynn) and feared that he would be arrested, and the defendant responded: "It's something else at all" (in the transcript, p.  253, line 19).  The defendant later added, as a former investigator, that in her opinion "there is no problem" if a person is told before the interrogation what he is going to be interrogated about, and denied that Yossi was at home with her when she held the clarification talks (ibid., line 31).
133. The cross-examination continued, in a subsequent session, regarding the incident of Yossi's interrogation in the assault case, the subject of the second indictment (as stated in the footnote at the beginning of the judgment, there was a fault in the numbering of the pages in a certain overlap of their numbering in the defendant's testimony). The plaintiff returned to the defendant's answer, according to which Yossi was not with her during the inquiries talks, but now the defendant claimed: "I don't remember, it was really a long time ago" (in the transcript, p.  250, line 26).  The plaintiff therefore referred the defendant to her correspondence with Lynn, where she wrote to Lynn that Yossi was with her.  The defendant did not respond to this question in a substantive manner, but reiterated and expanded on her arguments that lawsuits by virtue of various laws penetrated her private correspondence (ibid., pp.  251-252).
134. The defendant claimed that as a rule, the person summoned for interrogation was told what he was going to be interrogated about, and therefore the plaintiff's claim that by calling and asking to find out what Yossi was going to be interrogated about, disrupted an interrogation is "nonsense" (in the transcript, p. 253, line 3).  The prosecutor asked the defendant why she had bothered to make phone calls and called three interrogators, if Yossi already knew what he was invited for, and the defendant replied that she did not remember (ibid., p.  254, line 3).  The prosecutor hurled at the defendant the memorandum of summons for Yossi's interrogation, which also shows that Yossi tried to evade the summons, and told her that there is no situation in which the interrogee is given the subject matter of the interrogation in advance.  The defendant said: "Okay, okay, okay, so now they're trying to act as if I messed something up.  If I hadn't come to the interrogation then maybe I really don't know, you would have managed to trap me for obstruction...(ibid., p.  255, line 8 ff.).
135. The defendant was asked how a call at 10:00 p.m. to a woman on duty about a spouse summoned for interrogation was related to her position, but she did not answer in a substantive manner (in the transcript, p.  256, line 7 onwards) and later complained that "it comes down to such small WhatsApp conversations that I explain that I have a married girlfriend and I try as much as possible to protect people's privacy..." (ibid., line 16 ff.).  Later on, too, the defendant did not answer matter-of-factly, saying, among other things: "I was always known as someone who helped what to do for everyone, really, everyone knew that something was needed, this officer came to Neta, not better, come to Neta, take out a net for you, print it out for you, Neta will give it to you" (ibid., p.  257, line 25 ff.).
136. With regard to the accident incident (the subject of the third indictment), the prosecutor presented the defendant with the action report and the notice collected from Tal Mizrahi in this case, which the defendant forwarded to Yossi prior to his interrogation (in the transcript, p. 260, line 11 onwards).  The prosecutor asked the defendant if she understood the significance of the transfer of the materials, and the defendant responded: "I repeat that you are wrong and misleading.  This is an ATAN case, not a criminal case, and there is no impediment to transferring materials from the ATAN file to the relevant parties involved in the case" (ibid., p.  262, line 5 onwards).  The prosecutor accused the defendant that this was a serious obstruction of the investigation, and the defendant said: "I'm kidding, I don't know whether to laugh or cry, really, but I'm telling you that you're wrong and I didn't commit any offense and more than that in the car at the time of the accident that Tal Mizrahi was in the car with Yossi, so there's no disruption or anything like that" (ibid., line 16 ff.).
137. Regarding the incident of the report (the subject of the fifth indictment), the prosecutor asked the defendant about her remarks towards Sergeant Kadosh, after she understood that he had filmed the incident on his body camera, according to which he was a "maniac policeman" (in the transcript, p. 268, line 17).  The defendant explained that "the speech here, my answer, is our police slang" (in the transcript, p.  269, line 6).  Later on, the defendant claimed, "I did not ask for any cancellation of the report" (ibid., p.  270, line 1) and elaborated on her grievances against the DIP, including due to the violation of her privacy.
138. The prosecutor played the defendant her conversation with the barber Daniel Shaul on July 19, 2021, in which she told Daniel that Yossi was a criminal and that he was definitely going to be arrested because he was "complicated" (see also in memorandum P/24). In response, the defendant claimed that it was a personal and private conversation, when "now you are aware of the subtleties of a declared inquisition, today every criminal is a declared offender" (in the transcript, p.  272, line 11 ff.).  However, the defendant later added: "I had such a thing thatmaybe I liked like walking on the edge...  and that "maybe that's how I was sucked into a relationship that wasn't good for me but moved me" (ibid., line 21 ff.).
139. The Defense Case - The Additional Defense Witnesses:
140. The defense requested to summon a significant number of witnesses on its behalf, a request on which I granted - despite the partial opposition of the prosecution - and all as stated in the final and detailed decision in motion No. 28 (it should be noted that later on the defense waived some of the witnesses).  The defense also filed an exhibits file, which partially coincides with the plaintiff's exhibits file, when in the end the prosecution did not object to its filing (in the transcript, p.  247, line 9).  Let us now turn to a review of the testimonies of the defense witnesses who testified in court.

• The testimony of the ex-wife (Eran):

139. In Eran's main interrogation, the defense attorney presented him with the email of Deputy Superintendent Abutbul (a VIP Ayalon officer) to the interrogator in Bibitzky, in which Deputy Superintendent Abutbul briefly described the events of the report, but the witness clarified that he had no connection to this email and that he was also not mentioned in it (in the transcript, p. 276, line 14).  The defense attorney also presented Eran with Adv. Carmeli's letter (P/16), but he claimed that he had not given this information to Adv. Carmeli, and that the defense attorney should direct his questions to Adv. Carmeli.  Eran confirmed that he served at the time as a VIP supervision and control officer, but reiterated his version that he had nothing to do with the aforementioned correspondence.  The defense attorney therefore presented the memorandum of the interrogator Babitsky P/64 (in the transcript, p.  280, line 17) - in which he stated that he wished to make sure that Eran was excluded from the suspicions regarding the defendant, and that Deputy Superintendent Abutbul announced that he had taken care of this.  Eran replied: "This document confirms exactly what I claim to have been excluded and I did not know about this whole issue" (ibid., p.  281, line 6).
140. The defense attorney presented Eran with the action report N/23, which is the action report regarding his complaint, in which he noted that his six-year-old son called him and asked him to take him, and said that there was a man named Yossi in the house and there was shouting. Eran replied that there were many complaints about violence by the defendant towards the children and that it was his father's duty to deal with his son's request.  The defense attorney accused Eran of exerting improper influence after he said that false information about the defendant and her involvement in a gang of burglars had been introduced, and that it was important for Eran to know Yossi's last name.  An editor replied that it was a fabricated story, which was far from reality (in the transcript, p.  283, line 5).
141. In the cross-examination, Eran stated that he no longer serves in the police because he had retired early (in the transcript, p. 286, line 21) and that he had no acquaintance with Yossi at all.  The prosecutor asked Eran what he thought of the defense attorney's claim that the entire case against the defendant was born as a result of his conspiracy with the DIP.  To this, Eran responded: "I and the prosecutions by virtue of different laws do not go together, really, really, no, I am not their witness," and even claimed: "I have been abused by them for seven years" (ibid., p.  287, line 3 ff.).

• Testimony of Chief Superintendent Shai Ashkenazi:

142. Chief Superintendent Ashkenazi serves as the head of the Investigations Division of the Civil Case Unit, and by virtue of this position he was also the commander of the registration unit, in which the defendant served during the relevant period.  In his main testimony, Superintendent Ashkenazi described the registration unit as a small unit, whose nature of work is secretarial (in the transcript, p.  290, line 8).  Superintendent Ashkenazi confirmed that he had not been summoned in this case to testify about the division's work procedures (ibid., line 26), but later explained that "the matter is very clear" (ibid., p.  291, line 3 onwards) and reiterated that the referrals to the registration unit are in the matter of obtaining police approval for the purposes of insurance or medical treatment (ibid., p.  292, line 19 and line 29).
143. To the defense attorney's additional questions, Chief Superintendent Ashkenazi emphasized, of course, that not only does the unit not transmit the content of testimonies (in the transcript, p. 293, line 1 onwards), but also that "not everything from the traffic output is received.  The only thing you get in a telephone answer, from the file, is a police confirmation that it is already in the file" (ibid., line 5 onwards).  Later, Superintendent Ashkenazi noted, in response to the defense attorney's question on this matter, that it is not possible to transfer information by taking a screenshot and transmitting the photograph by text message (ibid., p.  294, line 29).
144. In the cross-examination, the prosecutor presented Superintendent Ashkenazi with the memo drawn up by the interrogator in Bibitsky about the conversation between them, where he stated that the defendant "has no authority to provide details beyond the status of an existing case and dry details related to the activity of the unit only" (see memorandum P/44), and he confirmed the conversation (in the transcript, p. 297, line 31).  The prosecutor therefore presented to Superintendent Ashkenazi some of the materials that the defendant had transferred, including investigative materials from the accident file, announcements, a list of PLA files, and details of Yehezkel's weapons license.  Chief Superintendent Ashkenazi answered decisively that such information could not be transferred, and even added: "I am not familiar with such things.  This is how things are conveyed" (in the transcript, p.  298, line 16)
145. In response to the plaintiff's additional questions, Superintendent Ashkenazi clarified that by virtue of their work in the registry, the police officers working there are exposed to police information, but a distinction must be made between the exposure itself and the transfer of the materials. As he put it: "Materials are not transferred, there is none.  You don't take pictures from a computer.  There are no such things.  It is possible that a person will come and the case will be closed...  He can come and get a photo of the bag.  And there will probably be testimonies in the photocopy of the file.  But I understand that this is a case that was open.  It is forbidden to do this," when he later clarified that "it could harm an investigation file" (in the transcript, p.  298, line 21 ff.).  Chief Superintendent Ashkenazi further noted that when a citizen applies to the ATAN registry to obtain police approval, there is no need for the police officer to access information systems such as the Adam system (in which, as stated, one can also see the list of open criminal files of each person and significant information about them), since the PLA system has all the required data (ibid., p.  299, line 5 onwards).

• Testimony of Yossi Shmuel:

146. The defense summoned Yossi to testify, even though the accusing Shin Bet did not object to the submission of the statements that were collected from him, as part of the interrogation of Y.P. Kedem, as exhibits of the defense (marked N/31 and N/32).  It should be noted, however, that in these statements, Yossi remained silent and did not give anything in response to questions asked by the interrogators, including in the context of his acquaintance with the defendant.  In this context, it should be noted that in his second interrogation of the above, Yossi was shown photographs that the defendant had sent him, including regarding the firearms license incident, but he did not respond to the interrogator's questions nor did he provide an explanation for the photographs (see N/32, line 26 ff.).
147. In his main testimony before me, Yossi described the relationship with the defendant as follows: "A certain connection was formed between us over a period of time. And the relationship was good and everything was fine, and I was involved in a certain activity for which I was tried" (in the transcript, p.  300, line 21 ff.).  In response to the defense attorney's questions, Yossi noted that at the time he met the defendant (on March 11, 2021), he did indeed have a criminal record, but he did not tell the defendant about it (ibid., line 26) nor did he share his activity with her; As he put it: "In particular, I do not involve a person who works for the police in my criminal activity" (ibid., p.  301, line 22 ff.).
148. As may be recalled, following the weapons offenses affair, which was investigated by YLP Kedem, an indictment was filed against Yossi (and his partners Tal Mizrahi and Omri Weil) in the Jerusalem District Court. In his testimony before me, Yossi claimed that his part in the affair was the smallest and was expressed only by assistance (in the transcript, p.  301, line 19 ff.), and in the end he was tried as part of a plea bargain for a sentence that included 18 months in prison (ibid., p.  302, line 8 ff.).  Regarding his behavior during the collection of his statements, Yossi said: "I was with my head down and I didn't answer because I don't answer the police during interrogations.  It's simple, it's always like that" (ibid., line 20 onwards).  Yossi reiterated that he did not share his criminal activity with the defendant and did not receive any information from her (ibid., p.  304, line 16 ff.).
149. The defense attorney asked Yossi about his conversation with Sergeant Rafaeli of the Kedem Police Department, on the day of his arrest, 01.08.2021 (as documented in the action report P/36). Yossi actually confirmed the conversation, even though, as noted, he claimed that he did not talk to police officers at all, since "I was interested in where I was" (in the transcript, p.  305, line 13), and also confirmed that he knew the meaning of the acronym "YLP." According to Yossi, when Sergeant Rafaeli asked him where he knew this, "I didn't want to answer," but when the defense attorney told him that the policeman wrote that he claimed to have seen it on forms, he replied: "I don't remember saying such a thing.  I just remember going into the station on every room, or every listed place...He added that he knew this from a friend who had been arrested by this unit a short time earlier (ibid., line 24 ff.).
150. In the cross-examination, Yossi stated that his contact with the defendant was short and lasted about six months or a little longer (in the transcript, p. 309, line 21), and later confirmed that "during the contact I was arrested several times" (ibid., p.  310, line 15).  Yossi repeatedly denied that the defendant had passed on information to him or cooperated with him.  However, when the prosecutor confronted him with the defendant's claim that he would call her and ask for help, Yossi confirmed that he had asked her for help in the accident case and she even went with him to the police station (in the transcript, p.  312, line 7 ff.).  When the prosecutor showed Yossi the many photographs that the defendant had given him, he initially denied it, but under the pressure of the cross-examination, he said: "I'll tell you something, the most truth: It's been 4 years, it's hard for me to remember such details...  I just went through hardships.  And being detained for 18 months is something that causes you some kind of trauma.  So it is difficult for me to recall specific things" (ibid., p.  313, line 30 ff.).
151. To the plaintiff's other questions, Yossi repeated and claimed that he did not remember details, and thus even answered the plaintiff's question as to whether he had called the defendant during the incident of the report (in the transcript, p. 314, line 14).  When the prosecutor told Yossi that the defendant had told him that she had checked him in the system because he asked to check the traffic report, he responded: "And I don't remember" (ibid., line 19), and when she accused him that the defendant had also sent him checks on his partners Tal Mizrahi and Omri Weil, he said: "As I told you I can't confirm that I received such things, I didn't ask for anything" (ibid., p.  315, line 1).  Yossi confirmed that he was summoned at the time for questioning for assault, as stated in the second charge.  However, when the prosecutor accused Yossi that the defendant had called the investigators on duty on this matter, while he was at her home, he said: "I remember being involved in the assault, I don't remember talking to her or anything like that.  This time again four years ago I have memory problems" (ibid., line 13 onwards).

• Testimony of Daniel Shaul:

152. Daniel Shaul, as may be recalled in the defendant's book, appeared as a prosecution witness in the indictment, but the accusing counsel waived his testimony and did not object to the submission of his statement, which was collected from the plaintiffs by virtue of various laws by Investigator Wilk, in the framework of the defense exhibits file (marked N/29). During the collection of the statement, Daniel was played a recording of a conversation between him and the defendant, dated 19 July 2021, in which the defendant said that Yossi was a criminal and that he was supposed to be arrested at any moment because he was "complicated" (see also in memorandum P/24).  In his statement, Daniel claimed that he did not remember the words and that "it did not interest me because I do not know this person" (N/29, line 49).
153. As part of the main testimony in court, the defense attorney asked Daniel about his feelings when the recording was played, and he claimed that he felt "threatened, with his back to the wall, it's a kind of humiliation, an invasion of privacy, like, I didn't understand what the connection was, that I was even a book..." (in the transcript, p. 328, line 8 ff.).  Later on, and referring to his conversation with the defendant in which she spoke about "dosa", Daniel said: "I understand that they heard some kind of conversation, which I myself don't even remember, I don't even remember at all, just a conversation with a client, out of a lot of conversations...(ibid., p.  329, line 30 ff.).  In the cross-examination, Daniel claimed that he did not remember the defendant telling him about Yossi and that he was about to be arrested, although he noted that "I remember that she told me that she had some kind of mess at work or something like that, and that she was suspended" (ibid., p.  330, line 22 ff.), and later added: "She told me that she was suspected of checking something" (ibid., p.  331, line 7 ff.).

• Testimonies of the defendant's parents:

154. The defense also testified about the defendant's two parents. It should be said immediately that both parents, and especially the father, accompanied their daughter throughout the trial with extraordinary devotion and loyalty.  These words are noteworthy, and so I said to the father at the end of his testimony (in the transcript, p.  320, line 19).  Admittedly, as is well known, the fact that a witness was present at the court hearings may have a significant impact on the weight of his testimony, but the testimonies of the parents before me were general testimonies regarding the feelings and circumstances of the defendant.
155. In his main testimony, the father described his many years of service in the police, the Intelligence and Detective Division in Haifa. The father also referred to the data of his normative family, and claimed that he was very surprised that his conversations with the defendant were included in the investigation materials in the case, since he had never spoken to his daughter about criminal matters.  However, the father noted that "I had comments regarding all kinds of connections that were not in accordance with my values" (in the transcript, p.  318, line 6 onwards).  The father also described his difficult experiences following the daughter's arrest and noted that he, together with his wife and daughter, filed a complaint against the DIP.  The defense attorney asked the father if he had been summoned to give a statement to the DIP, and the father replied that Investigator Wilk had called him and asked him to come to my office for prosecutions by virtue of various laws in Tel Aviv, and he replied that he was willing to give a version in Haifa but would not come to Tel Aviv (ibid., p.  319, line 17 ff.).
156. In the cross-examination, the father stated that he did not know about his daughter's relationship with Yossi, "but I knew as a father that she was doing bad things" (in the transcript, p. 319, line 30).  The prosecutor noted to the father that the investigation showed that he had warned the defendant about the issue of information security.  The father confirmed that he was not satisfied with the defendant's conduct and added that "as a father, I warned her that in the Israel Police there are people who receive a salary in order to check this" (ibid., p.  320, line 7 ff.).
157. The mother also described, in her main testimony, many years of service in the police, fraud in Haifa, and a highly normative family. The mother described her difficult feelings upon the daughter's arrest, to the point of needing to go to the emergency room in a hospital (in the transcript, p.  321, line 6 onwards).  The mother noted that her daughter was not a criminal, and that she did not understand how she was being tied to weapons, nor did she understand why her conversations with her daughter were listened to, even though as a former police officer she knew what was being listened to.

• Discussion and Decision - The Basic Issues:

158. The defendant conducted a long and comprehensive trial before me, according to her right, even though in the end she did not deny many of the facts alleged in the indictment. The conduct of this trial, and in particular the comprehensive cross-examinations conducted by the defense attorney, enabled the court to understand the thorough and comprehensive investigation conducted against the prosecutors by virtue of various laws in this case and the significant scope of evidence collected during the investigation.  Against this background, let us therefore begin our discussion of the fundamental issues that need to be decided.

• The digital evidence and its reflection in the defendant's versions:

159. As noted at the outset, a significant part of the evidentiary basis that was gathered in the investigation - and presented to me during the prosecution's case - is based on unequivocal digital-forensic evidence, on two cumulative levels: first, documentation from the police's information systems about the tests conducted by the defendant, including their dates and nature. The second was the screenshots and documents that the defendant sent to Yossi and others, as seized in her telephone (in which correspondence and recordings of phone calls were also seized).  Below, for convenience and brevity, we will refer to this evidence as the "digital evidence".
160. The defendant's version, on the other hand, was inconsistent. At the beginning of her interrogation of the plaintiffs under various laws, the defendant sought to distance herself from the suspicions as much as possible, and after digital evidence was hurled at her, she claimed to be active in the framework of her position.  However, the defendant's attempts to explain her conduct in transferring the information are ostensibly forced, and for good reason, since it is clear that it is impossible to whitewash the alleged delivery of information from police information systems to criminals.  In court, the defendant took the same line, in the sense that she did not deny the irrefutable digital evidence.  As we have seen, in her main interrogation the defendant did not address the details of the facts alleged in the indictment, and in her cross-examination she answered in many cases in a substantive manner.  However, as stated, the defendant did not deny the digital evidence and the plaintiff's specific question, whether she confirms that she carried out all the tests that are the subject of the indictment, and even replied: "There is no dispute" (see paragraph 119 above).
161. Thus, there is and cannot be a factual dispute that the defendant carried out the alleged tests in the first charge, in the third charge (the accident incident) and in the fourth charge (the weapon license incident), and also provided Yossi (and others) with photographs with information; all as alleged in the facts of these charges. However, it is important to emphasize that the evidentiary basis in these matters is not based on the defendant's version or her confirmations, but on the digital evidence itself, which was submitted before me in the framework of the testimonies of prosecutors under various laws and Adi Ben-Shitrit; All of this is as detailed in detail above as part of the review of these testimonies.  As stated, this is unequivocal evidence, and in fact, the defendant's statements on these matters are nothing more than confirmation of undeniable facts.

• The defendant's awareness of Yossi's being a criminal and her timing:

162. During the cross-examination of witnesses from prosecutions under various laws, the defense attorney remarked more than once, and rightly so, that the term "criminal" is not a legal term; Indeed, there is no general legal-definition of this term. However, it is clear to everyone that in everyday language, a person who is involved in police investigations, has a criminal record, and is even arrested from time to time in connection with his activity will be defined as a "criminal." It is clear that Yossi meets this definition, and he himself confirmed in his testimony before me that he was involved in the activity for which he was tried, had a criminal record, and was even arrested "several times" during his contact with the defendant.
163. The issue of the defendant's awareness that Yossi is a criminal has substantial implications in this case, as we will see below. As we have seen at length above, the defendant's versions regarding the timing at which she learned of Yossi's criminal activity were inconsistent - and this was reflected in her various statements - and by this effect reflected the defendant's awareness of the importance of the issue.  As a rule, the defendant sought to claim that she learned of Yossi's being a criminal only at the earliest possible date, while in her cross-examination she even claimed in one place that she only learned of this from DIP investigators, i.e., only during her interrogations of prosecutors by virtue of various laws (see paragraph 121 above).
164. However, there is unequivocal evidence that the defendant became aware of the fact that Yossi was a criminal at a much earlier date - in fact before the commission of the offenses of which she is accused before me - and her attempt to delay this date to her interrogations of prosecutors by virtue of various laws in itself is demanding. All of this is as follows:

First, already on April 4, 2021 - in the context of the incident of the report - the defendant conducted an examination of the demographic information and the PLA files in Yossi's case, and provided him with a photocopy of the list of investigation files in his case.  As may be recalled, in her first statement (P/1, line 110), the defendant noted that at that stage she saw that Yossi had "a full pool of files", and these words speak for themselves.