"The severity of tax offenses lies in the fact that they harm, at the same time, the economy, and the public purse [...]; In addition to their harm to the value of equality in the tax burden among the citizens of the state [...]. Therefore, the courts adopt a punitive policy that prioritizes considerations of deterrence and consideration of the public interest over considerations of rehabilitation, and when the starting point in such offenses is an actual prison sentence behind bars [...]" (Criminal Appeals Authority 8292/22 Levy v. State of Israel, para. 10 (December 12, 2022)) (emphasis added).
- Counsel for the defendant submitted the following ruling on his behalf:
- Criminal Case (Beer Sheva District) 5269-02-25 State of Israel v. Robbery (April 29, 2025) - The defendant was convicted of 16 offenses of fraudulent receipt under aggravated circumstances, 15 offenses of theft by an authorized person, 15 offenses of forgery with intent to promote something under aggravated circumstances, 15 offenses of using a forged document, one offense of false answer under the Real Estate Taxation Law, two offenses of omission of income under the Income Tax Ordinance and 5 offenses of maintaining false books of accounts under the Income Tax Ordinance. In this case, there was a closed plea bargain regarding the sentence and the court honored it and sentenced the defendant, inter alia, to 4 years in prison and compensation in the amount of ILS 2.2 million. In this regard, in contrast to our case, the court noted that "it appears that the plea bargain in the format in which it was held will lead to the return of substantial sums of money to the complainants, and this should be welcomed. The working assumption is that if it were not for the plea bargain, the victims of the offense would have faced a broken trough..."
The defendant is a lawyer by profession and profession, and has acted in various fraudulent ways in order to manipulate his clients' money. It is possible to characterize the defendant's modus operandi in obtaining trust funds that came into his hands by virtue of his position as a representative in sales transactions. Reaching out to his clients' money enabled him to carry out transactions in the bank accounts and collect fees, while presenting false representations regarding an action he took in order to promote the interests of his clients. The defendant frequently made use of the money he received from his clients, in a manner that was not for their benefit, and took it for his own personal needs and to promote fraudulent acts. In contrast to our case, this is a punishment that was imposed as a result of a plea bargain reached by the parties, which included an agreement regarding the elements of the punishment, and the plea bargain led to the return of considerable sums of money to the complainants.
- Criminal Appeal Judgment (Hai District) 32326-06-20 Hussam Bisan v. State of Israel (6 August 2020) - The appellant was convicted on seven separate charges of 7 offenses of forgery in aggravated circumstances, 7 offenses of using a forged document, and 7 offenses of fraudulent receipt under aggravated circumstances. All the offenses were committed during the years 2014-2015.
The appellant fraudulently presented himself to various complainants, as having connections in the Authority to the Israel Lands Administration, even though he had no connection to the Authority. The appellant fraudulently agreed with the complainants that he would sell them land belonging to the Authority, which is located in the towns of Tarshiha, Kabul, Shefar'am and Ba'ana, and that they would pay for it in cash. In each of the sale transactions, the appellant forged a document posing to be a lease contract of the Authority, bearing the Authority's logo, according to which the Authority leases land owned by it for a period of 99 years to the buyer in exchange for payment. The appellant signed the forged contract with the buyer, received payment in cash from him, and promised him that he would transfer the payment to the Authority, have the Authority sign the contract, and return it to the buyer. Subsequently, the appellant forged the Authority's signatures on the agreement, and the signature of the Authority's Northern Business Area Manager. The money that the appellant received from the complainants was not transferred to the authority, but rather pocketed it. The appellant fraudulently received large sums of money, in a total amount of over ILS 1,620,000 (he returned a significant part of it and was left with a debt of ILS 400,000).