I am unable to accept this argument of the defendant's counsel, and I will emphasize the difference between the actions of Majida, the defendant's accomplice, and the actions of the defendant.
I will preface by saying that Majda was convicted on the facts of the amended indictment, as part of five charges, of committing the following offenses and acts:
- In the first charge (in the case of Fatma - the second charge in the main case), she was convicted of theft by a licensed person and of prohibition of engaging without a license. Majda engaged in real estate brokerage without a license and reached out together with the defendant in the amount of ILS 244,000.
- In the second charge (in the case of Inmar - the fourth charge in the main case), she was convicted of aiding and abetting the fraudulent receipt of something under aggravated circumstances, as well as the offense of prohibiting the prohibition of engaging without a license. Majda engaged in real estate brokerage without a license and helped the defendant fraudulently receive ILS 137,000 under aggravated circumstances.
- In the third charge (in the case of the owner, Raphael Aryeh, a resident of the United States - the fifth charge in the main case), she was convicted of aiding and abetting the fraudulent receipt of something under aggravated circumstances, as well as the offense of prohibiting the occupation without a license. Majda engaged in real estate brokerage without a license and helped the defendant fraudulently receive ILS 240,000 under aggravated circumstances.
- In the fourth charge (in the case of Wahabi Hilmi - the eleventh charge in the main case), she was convicted of aiding and abetting the fraudulent receipt of something under aggravated circumstances, as well as the offense of prohibiting the prohibition of engaging without a license. Majda engaged in real estate brokerage without a license and helped the defendant fraudulently receive ILS 182,000 under aggravated circumstances.
- In the fifth charge, she was convicted of multiple offenses of using fraud, deception and subterfuge. Between the years 2010-2018, she concealed her business and did not report her income as detailed in the indictment (in the amount of approximately ILS 518,000).
As can be seen, the number of charges against which Majda was convicted is different from our case - the amended indictment in her case includes five charges, while in our case, the two amended indictments in the case of the defendant (in the main and attached file) include seventeen charges.