In fact, the defense attorney mentions these cases in order to illustrate and emphasize that in his view, the case before us is an immeasurably easier case than the cases discussed in case law. In my opinion, the argument that the case before us is easier than those cases mentioned does not indicate selective enforcement against the defendant as opposed to others. The cases there did not include the use of algorithmic trading, and to this it should be added that in contrast to the last two cases mentioned, the case before us also includes the commission of the offense of fraudulent receipt. In any event, the relevant comparison is between the circumstances of the case before us and other cases that are similar in their circumstances, and this is not the case with regard to the cases referred by the defense attorney.
- I do not believe that selective enforcement against the defendant has been proven that justifies the cancellation of the indictment. However, I do not rule out the possibility that within the framework of the sentencing considerations, there will be room to take into account the punishment imposed in cases brought by the defense attorney, after the parties have presented their arguments.
- Additional Claims
- The investigation was opened following a complaint filed by one of the customers (Harel) on the RNA's "hotline" (P/9), and this is, of course, nothing wrong. Later, the RNA investigator coordinated a meeting with the defendant (daughterand Anna for a business meeting) and there he was detained and taken for interrogation at the RNA's offices in Tel Aviv. The defendant claimed that this was a "fraudulent and manipulative exercise" (the application dated December 16, 2025). I do not believe that there is anything wrong with this, as the defendant claimed, and in any event, it was not claimed or proven that this had an impact on the statements that the defendant gave to the interrogator. Moreover, Lieberman explained that the way the investigators acted was because the investigators were unable to locate the defendant's definite address, and for fear of disrupting the investigation (Feb. 2, 2023, p. 94, paras. 6-13), these considerations are legitimate.
- I also categorically reject the defendant's claim that he was attacked by the interrogators who detained him. There is no basis for this. The defendant made this claim for the first time in his motion of December 16, 2025, did not mention it in his reply to the indictment, nor did he mention this claim during his testimony (p. 373, para. 36; p. 374, paras. 1-4). The claim that the interrogators entered his apartment without permission is also unsubstantiated, since the search was conducted by virtue of a search warrant issued lawfully (P/5). The same applies to the claims that the interrogators did not identify themselves, showed him the search warrant without giving him an opportunity to review it, and "confiscated" his mobile phone - since no basis was laid for these claims or for a defect that occurred during the conduct of the investigative activities. Finally, the argument that the investigative actions and the seizure of documents infringed the copyright that belongedto the defendant and violated his privacy, should also be rejected.
- After the court released the Public Defender's Office from representing the defendant, the defendant filed a number of motions in which he claimed (among other things) that his lawyers had failed to represent him.
In the motion he filed on November 25, 2025, the defendant claimed that the proceeding was tainted by a serious flaw that violated his right to a fair trial, due to a defect in representation. In this context, the defendant made three claims: First, that his representation by the Public Defender's Office was tainted by a conflict of interest, due to the remuneration system that exists in the Public Defender's Office, which is based on a rate according to hearing. Second, the defense should have built the defense strategy around the claim that "the funds were deposited directly into the investors' accounts," which would have collapsed the foundations of the indictment. Third, no motion was filed to cancel the indictment and no demand was made for the testimony of a representative on behalf of the merchant arena. The defendant further claimed that the matter was so simple and that despite this, the proceeding dragged on, even though the indictment was based on a false claim, and that the main party involved in the matter (an Australian trading arena) was not subject to the jurisdiction of the "State of Israel Corporation", as the defendant put it.