In this context, the Supreme Court ruled in Criminal Appeal 5136/24 Hassan Al-Sana v. the State of Israel (February 13, 2025), by the Honorable Justice Gila Kanfi-Steinitz, that "after examining with a comparative view the sentences of all those involved in the affair against the background of their role in the affair and their personal circumstances, I did not find any substance in their arguments. The status and importance of the principle of uniformity of punishment is not disputed, but its proper application does not imply the imposition of identical punishments on all those involved in the affair, but rather requires "maintaining a relationship of equality between the perpetrators of acts that differ from one another in number, severity or in the personal circumstances of the perpetrator" (Abu Leil v. State of Israel, para. 19 [Nevo] (September 23, 2014)). In this context, it was noted in the case law that an artificial equality should not be created by performing a 'copy-paste' action between the punishment of a certain person and the punishment of an unknown person; "The participation of different defendants in the same case study lays the groundwork for the application of the principle of uniformity of punishment. But it must be remembered that just as unjustified discrimination in the outcome of the sentence violates the principle of uniformity of punishment, so too does artificial equality between defendants" (Karignan v. State of Israel, para. 5 [Nevo] (March 28, 2012)). It follows that the principle of uniformity of punishment requires the creation of a hierarchy of punishment between the various appellants who are partners in the same criminal affair in a manner that will reflect the relative share of each of them (see: Qawasmi v. State of Israel, para. 19 and the references there [Nevo] (December 1, 2022)). In our case, a comparative examination of the penalties imposed on the appellants leads to the conclusion that the court properly considered the totality of the circumstances in the case of each of the appellants, including his part in the criminal case; the number of offenses of which he was charged and their severity; the recommendations of the report submitted (in relation to those in respect of which a report was submitted); his criminal record; The existence of a conditional sentence is pending; the circumstances of his life; and the return of some of the ammunition that was stolen to the police. The sentence of each appellant is appropriate to the totality of the aforesaid circumstances, and in all the arguments heard before us - written and orally - I have not found that the District Court deviated from the principle of uniformity of punishment, and certainly not to a degree that justifies our intervention."
- I will also give my opinion to the consideration of deterring the public from offenses of this kind committed by lawyers, acts that must be condemned and disgusted by appropriate punishment "...lest those who wear robes know that they bear the symbol of the law, and that to the extent that they exploit their profession to commit offenses, harm their clients, the honor of the profession and the trust inherent in it, they will be subjected to tangible punishments behind bars" (see the Governor's case cited above). It is not superfluous to add in this context the penalties set by the legislature alongside the offenses of which the defendant was convicted in relation to a single offense. I will also emphasize the importance of deterring the individual in our case, when the defendant again committed additional fraudulent offenses after he was prevented from practicing law in accordance with the decision of the court and the disciplinary court of the Bar Association.
The defendant committed acts of fraud and forgery that caused significant damage to the various complainants and to the public interest. The defendant forged documents systematically and very sophisticatedly, while preceding his actions in advance. His actions were done out of greed for money and for the purpose of obtaining financial gain at the expense of innocent complainants who believed the false representations he made to them, based on the forged documents. Landowners did not know about the defendant's actions at the time of the fact, including those who lived abroad, and those who died and the land was transferred to their heirs. In the Hive case , it was held that "the damage to the credibility of the Land Registry is an infringement of the 'Holy of Holies' of day-to-day commercial life, and there is no need to elaborate on the damage caused to the public interest due to the damage to the integrity and credibility of the Land Registry... The difficulty in exposing acts of forgery such as this justifies the harsher punishment, which is also intended to deter the public, "so that they may see and be seen."
- In light of the considerations detailed above, I found that the defendant should be sentenced to a total prison sentence, which is located in the middle part of the punishment complexes that I determined above, along with other ancillary punishments.
- In addition to the prison sentence, I will award compensation to the many victims who were harmed by the defendant's actions. Section 77(a) of the Penal Law allows the court to compel a defendant to pay compensation to the victims of the offense for the damage or suffering caused to them.
In this regard, the words of the Supreme Court by the Honorable Justice Kabub in Criminal Appeal 2858/23 Sharon Shir v. State of Israel (April 1, 2024) are appropriate, according to which: