Thus, in Israeli law, legal aid between states is based on the principle of reciprocity, and in essence, the State of Israel and the foreign state are entitled to approach each other with requests for execution of similar actions, while granting similar protections to those who are liable to be harmed by their actions.
The law clearly states that in order to carry out investigative actions, including the seizure of an object and the forfeiture of property in a foreign country, there is a regulated procedure that examines the investigative need, the actions required for it, and the alternatives. In this proceeding, the Israel Police is required to turn to the Attorney General as an "authorized authority," which has the discretion, and not the Israel Police. The scope of compliance with the request is ultimately determined by the foreign state, and those who may be harmed by the legal aid provided by the foreign country are protected in that country and according to the law applicable therein.
This is a structured arrangement that balances the various interests, including: the local investigative need, the protection of the inter-state relationship, and the protection of the rights of individuals who may be harmed by the investigation.
- Thus, despite the difficulty in the question of the "location" of an object or of evidence in cyberspace (Wismonsky, p. 142), and despite the various expansions that have been made with regard to the question of location and the international agreements that have been formulated in this regard, with regard to search and seizure, the territorial approach remains intact - that is, the enforcement authority is limited to the territory of the State of Israel. This is the case in the legal situation today, as well as according to the new search bill (Government Bill 867), which has not yet matured into legislation (Wismonsky, p. 143, and S.H. 98).
- As stated, the trial court accepted the respondent's position that due to the unique nature of cyberspace, sometimes an operation in the course of legal aid between countries would be too long. In this situation, the trial court ruled, "the respondent cannot sit idly by and allow the fraudulent money, which was stolen from the victims of the offense, to be smuggled out of the 'parking' wallet in the amount of millions of dollars," and therefore "the order was required as part of the respondent's swift action," and "the respondent was therefore entitled to turn to Tether, even if voluntary, and it relied on a valid order."
- However, necessity does not confer authority. "Even a 'good' administrative action or one that is done out of 'administrative necessity' can be found to be illegal if it has no source of authority." (High Court of Justice 4466/16 Alyan and 6 others v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank (December 14, 2017), paragraph 13 of the opinion of the Honorable Justice Yoram Danziger, and the references therein).
Therefore, in the absence of a source of authority, the order to freeze the account, which was issued on May 20, 2025, cannot stand.