The appropriate penalty range for the offenses of fraud and forgery for which the defendant was convicted in the attached case - the first to the fourth charge - ranges from 3-5 years in prison, with an accompanying punishment.
The appropriate penalty range for the tax offenses for which the defendant was convicted in the thirteenth charge in the main case ranges from 6-24 months in prison, with an accompanying punishment.
Based on these three punishment complexes, I will determine a total sentence for all the offenses attributed to him in the two amended indictments.
Is there room to deviate from the appropriate penalty range?
- Section 40D(a) of the Penal Law states that the court may deviate from the appropriate punishment range for rehabilitation considerations, and more specifically when "it finds that the defendant has been rehabilitated or that there is a real chance that he will be rehabilitated." In addition, Section 40(e) of the Penal Law states that the court may deviate from the appropriate punishment range to severity if "it finds that there is a real concern that the defendant will repeat offenses, and that a harsher punishment and removal from the public are necessary in order to protect public safety."
- In the case before us, I have not found that there are circumstances that justify deviating from the appropriate range of punishment for leniency or severity, and it appears that the punishment compounds are appropriate to the circumstances of the case and the factual set that emerges from the two amended indictments.
Considerations for determining the defendant's sentence
- First, I will consider the defendant's admission of the facts of the two indictments, the main and the annexed. At the same time, I cannot ignore the fact that in the main case, the defendant did not confess at the first opportunity, there were quite a few evidentiary hearings and many witnesses were even heard. Therefore, I cannot take this into account as one takes into account the defendant who confesses at the beginning of the proceeding, and spares the entire process of hearing the evidence. This is an old case and the defendant's confession to the allegations against him was given, as stated, at an advanced stage of hearing the evidence in the case.
In addition, it has often been held in the context of a defendant's confession that where the theft that was taken from the victims of the offense has not been restored and the omissions of the tax offenses have not been recovered, the expression of remorse cannot be regarded as complete, especially when we are dealing with offenses of fraud and forgery.
- Second, I will note with sternity the fact that the defendant's actions indicate that he is not fearful of the law when he again committed his acts - the subject of the attached case - during the management of the main case and after he was prohibited from practicing law by the court and the disciplinary court of the Bar Association.
- Third, I considered the fact that the defendant had no criminal record. Nevertheless, in this context, I accept the words of the accuser's counsel that after the offenses in the first indictment were committed, when the defendant repeatedly commits other offenses that are later in time, he cannot be credited with having a criminal record. I am of the opinion that in view of the large number of cases that have lasted for many years, the multitude of offenses and the large number of victims, I am unable to give this figure much weight.
- Fourth, I would like to consider the passage of time from the time the offenses were committed until the filing of the main indictment until today. On the other hand, it is impossible to ignore the scope and severity of the case, as well as the fact that the defendant began to administer evidence and many witnesses were heard before me until he decided to confess to the charges against him. Not only that, the defendant continued his actions while managing the main case, and another case was opened against him, for similar offenses, which was added to the main file. It should be noted that I took into account that he pleaded guilty to two amended indictments, but despite the amendments, it seems that it was possible to reach the conclusion of the case at an earlier stage than the stage at which the defendant's notice was received.
- Fifth, I will take into account the length of time the defendant was in detention behind bars and the period during which he was held under restrictive conditions.
- Sixth, I will give my opinion to the personal circumstances of the defendant, as detailed in the arguments of his counsel, including his marital situation, his difficult divorce, the support of his current wife and the impact of the situation on his son. I will also give my opinion to the defendant's statements before me, as detailed above.
- In this context, I will also consider the statements of the four character witnesses who appeared before me, who spoke in praise of the defendant, as will be quoted below:
- Testimony of Mr. Bahij Mansur
Mr. Mansour testified before me on December 14, 2025 (pp. 392-394) and shared that until about two years ago he was the head of the council in Isfiya and the defendant was a council member during this period. Prior to that, he claimed, he served as Israel's ambassador to eight countries. According to him, during the period when he served as head of the council, the defendant took upon himself the issue of the tenders committee and managed it properly with the accompaniment of the council's legal advisor and the treasurer at the time. He also promoted other tasks in the field of sports and education. He also noted that he had known the defendant even before he was a council member in the framework of the school parents' committee and had greatly assisted the various administrations. He testified about the defendant's family, which is a respectable family, and told about his grandfather, Sheikh Abu Rukun, who was a member of Knesset and contributed greatly to his work for the state.
- Testimony of Mr. Anas Mansur
Mr. Mansur testified before me on December 2, 2025 (pp. 384-385) and spoke about his roles in the community. According to him, he knew the defendant for a long period of time after he joined the parents' committee, during which time the defendant donated his time to the promotion of the Maccabi Isfiya soccer team. According to him, the defendant acted for the benefit and advancement of the community and students in the community, and helped children with special needs.
- Testimony of Dr. Akram Hasson
Dr. Hasson testified before me on December 25, 2025 (pp. 388-390) and shared that he currently serves as a member of Knesset, adding that he is a member of the Education and Finance Committee, and is active in issues related to local government and the IPS, and represents communities in the northern region. He testified about his closeness to the defendant and the defendant's family, and claimed that he had known them for many years. He discussed the difficult crises that the defendant went through, including his divorce. According to him, he has accompanied and supported him over the years. He also shared that he is a friend of his father.