Criminal Case (Haifa) 44064-11-20 State of Israel v. Shakib Abu Rukun - part 29

The Facts of the Fourth Indictment

24. At the relevant times of the indictment, the late Nayef Ruhana (hereinafter: "the deceased") was registered in the Land Registry (hereinafter: "the Land Registry") as the owner of 3,047/16,894 parcels (representing an area of 1,523 square meters) in the land identified as Plot 25 in Block 17142, within the jurisdiction of the Isfiya Local Council (hereinafter: the "Real Estate").

On November 1, 1987, the deceased signed a sale agreement with Shafika and Ishtiak Abu Fakhar (hereinafter: "Shfika" and "Ashtiak" respectively), according to which he sold them 680 square meters of the land he owned (hereinafter: "the plot").  On December 18, 1994, a warning note was registered in favor of Shapika and Eshtiak.

On April 22, 1997, the deceased passed away.  On a date that is not known to the accuser exactly, October 2024, and when a dispute arose between Shfika and Ishtiak and their neighbors over the use of the land, Shfica approached the defendant and asked him to arrange the registration of her ownership of the plot in the land registry.

For this purpose, the defendant forged an irrevocable power of attorney and two bills of sale in order to enable the registration of ownership of the plot in the name of Shafika and Ishtiak.  He submitted the forged documents to the Land Registry himself or through Adham with the intention of enabling the registration of ownership.  At the defendant's request, Shika transferred to him a sum of ILS 1,000 in cash in exchange for the payment of the registration fees.

For the purpose of his actions, the defendant forged the signatures and seals of lawyers, without their knowledge and consent and without lawful authority.

Plea bargain

25. The parties reached a plea bargain in the main case (see M/2 and the minutes of the hearing of September 25, 2025) and in the attached file (see the minutes of the hearing of November 13, 2025 before the Honorable Judge Rona Persson and the minutes of the hearing before me of December 2, 2025), in which the defendant confessed to the facts of the amended indictments and was convicted of the charges against him. It was also agreed that the parties would argue for punishment freely.

Summary of the parties' arguments and evidence for punishment

26. On December 2, 2025, December 14, 2025, and December 25, 2025, the parties' arguments regarding the sentence were heard.
27. On behalf of the accuser, arguments for a written sentence were submitted.
28. In addition, affidavits were submitted on behalf of the victims of the offense, and some of them chose to testify before me regarding the punishment. The affidavits, their appendices and the documents submitted in this connection were submitted and marked H/1-H/10, F/1 and F/2.  I will discuss their content at length below, within the framework of the circumstances that are connected to the commission of the offense, and an examination of the damage caused as a result of the defendant's actions.
29. On behalf of the defense, four character witnesses testified before me, who spoke in praise of the defendant, as will be detailed later in the circumstances unrelated to the commission of the offense.

The accuser's arguments

30. Counsel for the accuser argued in his written and oral arguments that the defendant was convicted in the Meramat Land affair, which was extensive and sophisticated and spread over 16 years from 2008 to 2024. According to him, this is not a case

Not only in acts of fraud but also in theft by an authorized person, and he also noted the seriousness of the defendant's actions when he worked as a lawyer.  In his actions, he deceived both the complainants and the state authorities.  Counsel for the accuser insisted on the protected values that were harmed by the defendant's actions and argued that the harm to them was at the high level.

31. Counsel for the accuser further noted that a lawyer who is entrusted with the law and serves as a clerk of the court is expected to be very strict about the law, when it comes to someone who is supposed to be an example and exemplary in his behavior and conduct in issues related to the protection of the law. In these circumstances, the violation of the law is not only serious in itself, but it also constitutes damage to the image of lawyers who must act in accordance with the law.  Therefore, the defendant's conduct sets a negative example for the public.
32. According to him, the defendant worked tirelessly, for years, fraudulently and falsely, in order to create rights from scratch in the Land Registry, while fatally harming the credibility of the Registry and harming the ongoing commercial life of real estate transactions. The defendant took advantage of the license granted to him by the state to practice law in order to deceive his clients and the state authorities.  He forged many documents, signatures of lawyers and landowners, some of whom died many years ago in order to take over the land owned by their heirs.  Based on these forged documents, warning notes were recorded and rights were even transferred to the land registry.
33. He also claimed that the indictments included 17 charges in which the defendant's actions were detailed. These are many offenses that were committed against many victims, over a long period of time, when it appears that the defendant did not pay attention to the suffering and severe damage caused to the victims at the time of the offenses, and did not show compassion towards them.
34. In some of the charges, the victims of the offense invested the best of their money in the purchase of the land that is the subject of the charges, real estate in which the defendant fraudulently presented himself as a power of attorney to carry out proprietary activities with rights relating to them, inter alia, to sell them to others, and to take the proceeds into his own pocket. The defendant took advantage of the trust placed in him by the purchasers as their lawyer in the "sale" transaction.
35. He further claimed that the acts detailed in the attached indictment were committed after a serious indictment was filed against the defendant, after he was suspended from the Bar Association and after he was prohibited from practicing law by this court. None of this deterred him from continuing to commit the offenses that are the subject of the attached indictment.  His actions there were more severe, when they were carried out with greater sophistication, when the defendant used a very old lawyer who would serve as a front and he could hide behind him while he committed the fraudulent acts.
36. The defendant took advantage of the trust placed in him at the Land Registry Office and the Tax Authority when he was a "member of the household" and came there on a daily basis by virtue of his real estate occupation. Therefore, no one there imagined that the defendant was deceiving them time and time again.
37. Counsel for the accuser further argued that the defendant fraudulently received the sum of ILS 1,411,000 as well as many lands. To this day, many lands are falsely registered or have unlawful warning notes about them, and all the authorities are now required to act to restore the situation to its original state, and even the victims, some of whom have already done so, are forced to invest great efforts, money and time in order to return what belongs to them.
38. In his arguments, counsel for the accuser also referred to the punitive policy that applies to fraudulent offenses, in relation to a single incident and in relation to a large number of charges. He also referred to the policy of punishment for offenses he committed under the Income Tax Ordinance.
39. According to him, since the defendant committed various offenses against different complainants, which were committed at different time intervals from each other, these are a number of separate incidents. In addition, in the written arguments, he detailed a compound for each of the charges and sought to establish a compound for all the charges - in the main indictment, he claimed a compound ranging from 7-10 years in prison, and in the attached file, he claimed a compound ranging from 4-6 years in prison.  He also asked that the defendant be punished in the center of the punishment compounds, and that the two compounds be combined into a single sentence.
40. With regard to the circumstances unrelated to the commission of the offense, counsel for the accuser argued that it had not been proven in the present case that a prison sentence for a deterrent and significant period would harm the defendant or his family, beyond the harm caused to any defendant who was sentenced to imprisonment in practice. He further noted that the defendant did not make any effort to correct the results of the offenses and did not compensate the complainants for his actions on his own initiative.  The defendant does not have difficult life circumstances that justified the commission of the offenses.  Although the defendant has no criminal record, he noted that after committing the offenses in the first indictment, he committed additional offenses as part of the attached indictment, he cannot be credited with having a criminal record.
41. With regard to the sentence imposed on Majda, his accomplice in some of the charges in the main case, he argued that it was not possible to draw an inference from him in this case, since Majda's share was limited to only four charges, in three of which she was convicted of aiding and abetting only, and this only for the offense of fraudulent receipt. Majda did not take part in the many forgeries, was not a lawyer who used her authority to commit the fraudulent acts, and did not submit many forged documents to the various authorities.  Counsel for the accuser further argued in this context that in cases where one of the defendants was convicted as part of a plea bargain, the power of comparison between the defendants is limited, since the set of considerations that operate in formulating a plea bargain is broader than that that exists when a court comes to sentence the defendant.
42. Counsel for the accuser also insisted that fraud and forgery offenders who act out of greed for money and abuse of the trust placed in them should be taken into account. The deterrence aspect is of great importance when it comes to fraudulent offenses, due to the ease and availability of their execution.  He also sought to take into account considerations of deterring the public.
43. At the end of the day, the accuser sought to impose on the defendant an actual prison sentence at the middle level of the compounds to which she petitioned, a long and significant conditional imprisonment, significant compensation for each of the complainants, for all the charges in both cases, and a significant and deterrent fine, so that the defendant's pocket would be damaged beyond the value of the offense and would compensate for the totality of his actions.

The defense's arguments for punishment

44. Counsel for the defendant argued that the accusing counsel did not accurately describe the defendant's actions and added that his arguments were unfounded. He further noted that the accuser's counsel was not precise as to the alleged sum that the defendant fraudulently received into his hands and regarding the ruling to which he referred, which, in his view, was irrelevant to the present case.
45. According to the defendant's attorney, in all the charges the defendant used the same method, of forging documents and submitting them to the Land Registry. He further argued that in only two cases was the transfer of ownership (the first and eleventh charges), i.e., there was a proprietary change in the real estate rights, and in one of the cases the act was even canceled shortly afterwards.  In the other cases, he argued that the defendant was only able to register a warning note, when in fact the rights in the land remained in the hands of the owner, and the warning note could be revoked.  According to the defendant's counsel, the main reason for the fraud is the forgery of documents, and the defendant must bear the consequences of his actions in this matter.  He further claimed that in some cases it was financial damage that could be compensated and that the defendant would be held accountable for his involvement.
46. Counsel for the defendant also discussed the circumstances of the commission of the offenses in each and every charge, emphasizing that his arguments do not diminish the severity of the defendant's actions, and argued that in some cases the victims of the offense received compensation, and in some cases the damage was repaired. He also noted that in some cases the victims of the offense do not ask for compensation in accordance with the affidavits they submitted when the dispute between the parties was resolved, and in some cases there was no transfer of money to the defendant, and there are cases in which Majida, his partner, was the one who benefited from the fraudulent acts.  In his arguments, he also asked to refer to the sentence imposed on Majida, his accomplice, 9 months of community service, when the court came to sentence the defendant.
47. With regard to the attached indictment, counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant committed the offenses but did not obtain anything from them, i.e., his actions were not intended to bring him financial gain. In this context, too, the defendant's counsel discussed the circumstances of the commission of the offenses in each separate charge and claimed that only warning notes were recorded and that the ownership of the land was not transferred.  According to him, the defendant continued to act without judgment, and used the same method he was familiar with, forging documents, and nothing more.  As for the third charge, he noted that the defendant received consideration, and in one of the charges, the defendant tried to transfer ownership, which was not carried out at the end of the day.
48. He further argued that the accuser's counsel erred in his request to determine a penalty range for each charge separately. There are common characteristics to all the charges, which is the same method of forging documents and submitting them to the Land Registry.  As determined by the Supreme Court, this is a substantive test that examines the connection between the characteristics of the offenses committed.  Therefore, he sought to establish a single penalty area for all the charges and referred to a ruling on the matter.

0

49. He further emphasized that the case in question was submitted to the Magistrate's Court and not to the District Court, in terms of the severity of the acts there is a difference and the ruling mentioned by the accuser is not appropriate for the circumstances of this case, and what emerges from it does not support the accuser's claim regarding the damage caused.
50. Counsel for the defendant detailed that the sentence in the defendant's case is supposed to begin with a conditional sentence, and that the defendant should be sentenced to imprisonment by way of community service. On this issue, he referred to the verdict in Majda's case.  According to him, the sentence of a defendant should be commensurate with the sentence imposed on his accomplices.  It is not appropriate for Majda to receive a sentence of community service, and for the defendant to petition for a sentence at the upper level of the punishment range.
51. The defendant confessed to the facts of the two amended indictments, accepted responsibility for his actions, and was sentenced to a considerable period of imprisonment in electronic handcuffs, while prior to that he had been in detention for several months due to the attached file.
52. He also claimed that the character witnesses spoke in praise of the defendant and described the normative conduct of his family. The fact that they testified in his favor does not indicate that they identify with the fraudulent acts, but rather described another aspect of his conduct.  Some of them spoke about the defendant's mobilization for society during challenging times, and the assistance he provided to the residents during the Corona period and the Iron Sword War.
53. Counsel for the defendant further argued that the defendant received his sentence, lost his license to practice law, a significant punishment for a person whose livelihood is his livelihood. Now the defendant has no livelihood and must find a new profession to engage in and will even serve his sentence.  The defendant's counsel also noted the difficulties that appeared in the conduct of the defendant's son as a result of the filing of the indictments and the legal process.  The harm and damage caused to the defendant's family cannot be ignored.  In addition, he discussed the social harm caused to the defendant as a result of his actions, the anger of people towards him, and the future social consequences as a result.
54. At the end of the day, the defendant's counsel asked that the defendant be considered and that a proportionate punishment be imposed on him, which would include imprisonment to be served with community service, as well as a conditional prison sentence.

The defendant's words before the sentencing

55. The defendant claimed to me that he was ashamed of his actions, admitting his mistake and that he had repeated it many times.
56. He also claimed that by his actions he had caused injustice to his children and his wife, who was the burden of making a living and raising children, and that she had even been harassed by people when they vented their anger on her and she knew nothing of the acts he had committed. According to him, he caused damage to the victims, but for a significant number of them he managed to repair it.
57. The defendant reiterated that he apologized for his actions and would not repeat them. He stressed that he does not intend to return to the legal profession.  He asked to take into account his health condition, the fact that he has a teenage son and a daughter who is graduating from high school and is facing significant national service.
58. According to him, he spent a long time behind bars after the second indictment (attached) was filed, and is currently under house arrest under difficult conditions. He also noted that he has been in group therapy for about three weeks on behalf of the Probation Service, which helps him internalize the severity of his actions.  At the end of his remarks, he apologized once more, stressing that his actions were contrary to the values he grew up with.

Discussion and Decision:

59. In accordance with the outline of the sentence, as required by Amendment 113 to the Penal Law, the court will first determine the appropriate punishment range and then sentence the appropriate punishment for the defendant, while examining whether there is room in the case at hand to deviate from the scope to be determined.

The appropriate punishment compound - is it one compound or several compounds?

60. As part of Amendment 113 to the Penal Law, the court is required to first examine whether the defendant has been convicted of a single offense or a number of offenses. In the case of several offenses, the court must determine whether they constitute a single event or a number of separate events.  According to Section 4013(a) of the Penal Law, if it is a single incident, the court will determine an appropriate punishment area for the entire incident and will impose a total penalty for all offenses due to that incident.  On the other hand, according to section 40C(b) of the Penal Law, if the court reaches the conclusion that there are a number of incidents, it must determine an appropriate penalty area for each incident separately.  Thereafter, the court may sentence a separate sentence for each incident or a total sentence for all incidents [see in this regard, Criminal Appeal 6655/23 Odeh v.  State of Israel (October 6, 2024) and Criminal Appeal 8641/12 Sa'ad v.  State of Israel (August 5, 2013)].
61. In Criminal Appeal 4910/13 Jaber v. State of Israel (October 29, 2014) (hereinafter: "the Jaber case"), the "close connection" test set by the Honorable Justice D.  Barak Erez was adopted in the majority opinion for deciding when a number of acts or offenses will be considered a single event.  The Honorable Justice A.  Vogelman (as he was then called) in the Jaber case even expanded the definition proposed by Justice Barak Erez to the test of the close connection in his ruling:

"...  I would like to emphasize that in my view, the box "one incident" is broad enough to include criminal acts that were carried out over a period of time; included various acts; in relation to various victims; And in different places.  All - as long as they constitute one criminal mask.  We find that the examination of whether the various offenses committed by the defendant constitute a "single event" is purpose-functional.  This conclusion is necessitated, in my view, by the broad wording of section 4013, which leaves a wide range of discretion to the court that sentencing the law.  This broad area in turn expresses flexibility with regard to the possibility of combining many "actions" into a single "event."

62. In the case before us, I am of the opinion that we are dealing with a number of separate incidents, and in accordance with section 40C(b) of the Penal Law, I must determine an appropriate penalty range for each incident separately. Regarding the offenses detailed in the main file, I will determine two separate punishment complexes - one for all the fraud and forgery offenses detailed in the first twelve charges, and the other for the thirteenth indictment, which deals with various offenses under the Income Tax Ordinance.  With regard to the attached indictment, I will determine one appropriate penalty range for all the offenses attributed to him in the framework of the four charges.
63. I will note that the many acts of fraud and forgery committed by the defendant, as it emerges from the two amended indictments, continued for many years, in relation to different victims and with respect to different real estate, and in accordance with the definition of the Honorable Justice Fogelman above, I determine that with regard to the offenses of fraud and forgery, in each of the indictments as aforesaid, it is a single criminal series, which satisfies the test of close connection and the offenses must be considered. In each of them, as a single event.
64. Although the defendant used the same method of deception and forgery in the two indictments as aforesaid, and his actions over the years can be viewed as one continuous deception - both towards the various victims and towards the state authorities - I have reached the conclusion that a separate penalty area should be determined in the matter of each of them. The defendant committed the offenses that are the subject of the main case between the years 2008-2018 and the offenses that are the subject of the attached file between the years 2022-2024, and his "sequence of actions" was interrupted due to the filing of an indictment against him in the main case in 2020 and not on his own initiative.  Despite the management of the main case against him and despite the decisions of the court and the disciplinary court of the Israel Bar Association, which prohibited him from practicing law, the defendant continued his actions and committed the offenses that are the subject of the attached file, and this testifies that his actions were committed in more serious circumstances.
65. If so, since I have determined that the offenses of fraud and forgery detailed in each of the amended indictments constitute one separate incident, I will determine two separate punishment complexes. In addition, I will determine an additional area regarding the offenses under the Income Tax Ordinance in accordance with the thirteenth indictment in the main case, since these offenses do not deal with fraud and forgery, but rather constitute a violation of the proper conduct of the tax authorities and the ability of the authority to collect tax accordingly.

The Appropriate Punishment Complex - Discussion