Fourth, the evidence placed before me by the accuser is varied and includes a great deal of written documentation alongside the testimonies of the clients who traded in the scene through the defendant. When I came to analyze the investors' version, I warned myself against the possibility that they (or some of them) have an interest in the outcome of the trial and the conviction of the defendant. It should be recalled that the witnesses lost their money and suffered from a lack of money, and some of them blame the defendant for this. This is even more true of witnesses who openly expressed their anger at the defendant (such as Khoury, Harel and Asa). These words were of course in front of Y's eyes when I came to analyze the evidence, although the general impression that arises is that these are witnesses who gave versions that were characterized as reliable and that their testimonies are well intertwined with the rest of the evidence, especially the documentation that took place during the defendant's activity. This evidence is consistent with the witnesses' versions, and I will relate to this later in relation to each and every issue discussed in the judgment.
- The defendant's statements before the RNA and his testimony in court
- The defendant complained about the manner in which the interrogation was conducted against him, and claimed that this led to the sculptingof his statements. During his testimony, the defendant claimed that he was not given the right to consult with an attorney and that "they tortured me, literally tortured, they froze him in the air conditioner, did not let me eat, did not let me drink, shouted at me, humiliated me" and that the interrogation was carried out under threats and pressure (P. 9.2025, p. 375, paras. 4-15).
There is no substance to these arguments and should be rejected outright.
- The defendant was interrogated twice by Lieberman, an investigator on behalf of the RNA, on October 6, 2019 and January 29, 2020. The investigator testified in court about the circumstances of the investigation and its course, and his words reflected detailed and reliable testimonythat is consistent with the rest of the evidence in the case. Both interrogations were documented in visual footage. The interrogation dated October 6, 2019 (hereinafter: the first interrogation) was documented in Exhibit A/1; the transcript was marked P/2. The interrogation from January 29, 2020 (hereinafter: the second interrogation) was documented in Exhibit A/3, transcript A/4. The visual documentation makes it possible to examine the defendant's claims in an unmediated manner.
- Viewing the visual footage shows that during the investigations, no noteworthy incident took place and no unusual conduct was recorded that could even lead to the beginning of a hearing on a claim of disqualification. There is certainly no indication in the documentation that the interrogation was carried out while shouting and humiliating, as the defendant first claimed in his response to the indictment, and all the more so while exerting physical pressure as implied in the motion filed on December 23, 2025. To illustrate, at a certain point in the first interrogation, the defendant told the interrogator that he was hungry, and as a result, the interrogator made sure to provide the defendant with food (P/2, pp. 183-184). Later, after a break was held, it is clear that the defendant ate lunch (although he was not satisfied with the quality of thefood) and was even offered hot drinks (P/2, p. 185, paras. 7 onwards). During the interrogation, the defendant was even allowed to speak with his mother (P/2, pp. 324-325). In addition, at a certain stage of the interrogation, the defendant complained about the temperature in the room (P/2, p. 19). This conduct testifies to the fact that the defendant did not hesitate to bring his wishes to the interrogator and that the interrogator was attentive to his requests and wishes. The fact that the interrogations lasted several hours does not constitute an impropriety, especially in light of the fact that they were conducted under reasonable conditions while preserving the rights of the accused.
- In both interrogations, the defendant insisted on his right to consult with an attorney, but the defendant did not ask to consult with an attorney (P/2, pp. 3-4, P/4, pp. 2-3, P4A, P/2A). I do not accept the argument that there was room to make sure that the defendant understood what was said and to ask him a question again along the lines of "Do you want to consult with an attorney before we continue", or to give the defendant additional explanations regarding the public defender (P.2.2.2023, p. 99, para. 14; p. 101, s. 4). Viewing the footage of the first interrogation shows that there was no reason to think that the defendant did not understand his right to consult with an attorney. Documentation of the second interrogation, which took place several months after the first interrogation, indicates that after the warning and after the defendant asserted his right to be represented by a public defender, the defendant asked, "How can I know if I am entitled to a public defender?" (P/3, p. 3, para. 14). As a result, the investigator contacted the Public Defender's Office, but the latter did not see fit to advise her on the grounds that the defendant had not been arrested and was not expected to be detained. It should also be noted that following the defense attorney's response, and despite the fact that it was offered to him, the defendant did not ask to consult with a private attorney on his behalf (P/3, pp. 3-8, p. 44, paras. 2-15).
- The picture that emerges from the documentation of the defendant's interrogations before the INA and from the testimony of Investigator Lieberman that there is no ground for disqualifying the statements, and in fact the evidence before me does not even allow for the beginning of a hearing on invalid grounds of any kind.
- The defendant chose to testify and testified in court. On many points, his testimony in court is inconsistent with what he gave to the RNA investigator. Later on, we will analyze the evidence and relate to the defendant's version, but at this stage we will note that the conclusion that arises is that the defendant's statements to the RNA investigator in both interrogations should be preferred to his testimony in court. The defendant's version before the RNA investigator was orderly, revealed an orderly and clear internal logic, and at several points it was cross-referenced during the interrogation with additional evidence collected by the authority. On the other hand, the defendant's conduct in court and his statements during his testimony gave rise to many difficulties. On some points, the defendant evaded the taxof substantive answers (and the examples are many: September 10, 2025, pp. 455-456, pp. 429-433; 436, 440; pp. 404-405; p. 397, paras. 15-26 - in response to the question, the defendant stated that he "neither confirms nor denies"). At times, the defendant's answers were defiant and did not conform to the line of logic. Thus, for example, after the defendant avoided confirming whether the voice intapes produced from his phone was indeed his own, he claimed that "today it is possible to duplicate any voice of anyone, I can even duplicate your voice," and when the court asked him to give a substantive answer, he noted that he did not know if it was his voice (P. September 10, 2025, p. 442, Q. 27 onwards).
- The first charge - fraudulent receipt
- As noted earlier, the accuser succeeded in lifting the burden imposed on her and proving the foundations of the offense of fraud with respect to eight clients - the clients who testified in court.
- We will first discuss the elements of the offense of receiving something fraudulently, and then we will move on to discuss the evidence in connection with the elements of the offense.
The Legal Aspect
- The offense of fraudulent receipt is set forth in section 415 of the Penal Law, which provides as follows:
"Whoever receives something fraudulently, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for three years, and if the offense was committed under aggravated circumstances, he shall be sentenced to imprisonment for five years."