The impression is that Defendant 2, who is diagnosed with anxiety and depression disorder and suspected narcissistic personality disorder, and who grew up in a complex family environment in which he was exposed to violence and fraudulent patterns, has deceptive and manipulative patterns, and has significant difficulties in behavioral and emotional regulation, which may lead to impulsive and violent behavior and failure to meet boundaries. In addition, it is characterized by addictive and dependent patterns, and tries to present a functioning and successful façade that is expressed, among other things, in the aspiration to make financial gains, even if in illegitimate ways. It was noted that Defendant 2 had difficulty knowing and understanding in depth his problematic situation and patterns, and mainly projected responsibility on external factors.
The Probation Service considered the chances of rehabilitation and risk factors in Defendant 2's condition, including his criminal record; the severity of his actions, their duration and the sophistication involved; the difficulty in taking responsibility; difficulties in regulating; marginal, impulsive, fraudulent, and addictive patterns; difficulties in examining his problematic behavior in depth; difficulties in expressing empathy; and denying the need for treatment. The impression is that Defendant 2's ability to benefit from a therapeutic process is low, and it is doubtful whether it will reduce the risk in his condition. Therefore, the Probation Service did not make a rehabilitative-therapeutic recommendation in his case, and found that concrete and deterrent punishment was required, which would set a clear limit on his boundary-breaking behavior as a means of reducing the risk of its recurrence.
- In the report of Defendant 3 dated October 10, 2024, which was prepared after reviewing medical documents, the circumstances of his life and characteristics were detailed. It was noted that defendant 3 had no criminal record and that he was 35 years old, married and the father of two minors, and that one of his children had a complex medical condition. He also detailed the complex medical condition of defendant 3, who stated that in recent years he has been suffering from increased morbidity (presented a medical certificate) and claimed that his health condition makes it difficult for him to lead a normal lifestyle. In the background of the commission of the offenses, Defendant 3 described a prior acquaintance with Defendant 2, who approached him and offered him to work with him and with Defendant 1, whom he did not know. According to him, within a short time he realized that the company was not supervised and that its general conduct was improper, but he decided to turn a blind eye and continue his work out of a desire to increase his income, expecting that this could lead to calm in his relationship with his wife. This was until he was dismissed by Defendant 1. Defendant 3 stated that he felt exploited by defendants 1-2, and that the probation service had difficulty examining his choice to work with them, and despite his assumption of responsibility, he tended to downplay the severity of his actions, was preoccupied mainly with the prices he paid, and had difficulty recognizing the harm to the victims of the offense.
According to Defendant 3, after he was arrested and interrogated, he chose a different career path and stopped working in the field of sales, since this field is based on commissions, and in his view, his desire to increase his income leads him to illegal behavior. The Probation Service understands that defendant 3 recognizes the external factors that underlie his behavior, but finds it difficult to examine internal factors and his deep-rooted patterns. The impression is that Defendant 3 is characterized by fraudulent patterns of behavior and manages to recognize only partially his obstructive patterns. It was also noted that Defendant 3 did not seek specific treatment in the field of fraud, despite the recommendation of his defense attorney, and chose to deal alone, but expressed his willingness to cooperate as long as the Probation Service recommended his referral for treatment. The impression is that this is only verbal correctness out of a desire to improve his legal situation, and not out of recognition of the need for treatment.