Sixth, the investigation conducted against the defendant was disproportionate in relation to the circumstances of the case, and that the facts should have been clarified in an "administrative investigation" and ended at most with a warning to the defendant to cease his activity. This is especially true in cases related to a commercial arena, which is an innovative matter in Israeli enforcement. The defendant argued that it is possible that the many resources invested in the investigation, which did not yield a significant result, were the basis for the decision to file an indictment.
In his answer, the defendant went on to elaborate extensively on each and every offense, as well as detailed his claim for protection from justice. I will review these arguments during the hearing in the various chapters of the body of the judgment.
- The course of the hearing
- In light of the defendant's denial, the accuser's evidence was brought, and during the trial a number of witnesses testified.
- On behalf of the accuser, a number of prosecution witnesses testified that they were customers who were in contact with the defendant, to whom we will refer below. In addition to the clients, Prosecution Witness No. 12 also testified, Mr. Ze'ev Lieberman, an investigator on behalf of the RNA (hereinafter: Investigator Lieberman or Lieberman), who, among other things, interrogated the defendant. The list of prosecution witnesses in the indictment included additional witnesses who did not testify, and the evidence related to them was submitted with consent (see transcript of January 22, 2023). It should also be noted that the accuser waived the testimony of prosecution witnesses 5-6, as well as the testimony of the representative of Pepperstone. As a result, no documents were submitted from the merchant's arena, including documents related to the clients' accounts at Pepperstone.
- The accuser also summoned prosecution witness 8, Mr. Yoel Cohen, one of the defendant's clients, who could not appear for a long period of time, and therefore the accuser waived his testimony. As a matter of fact, on June 22, 2023, the accuser finished presenting her evidence other than the testimony of Yechiel Cohen, which was scheduled to be heard on October 12, 2023. However, the security situation that prevailed after October 7, 2023, led to a prolonged delay in the appearance of the witness, who is a lieutenant colonel in the IDF, due to his military service. Only on May 6, 2025, did the accuser announce that she was waiving the witness and declared, "These are my witnesses."
- The defendant testified in his defense at the meeting held on September 10, 2025, and beyond his testimony, no other additional evidence was presented on his behalf.
- Throughout the proceeding until the defense case, the defendant was represented by a defense attorney on behalf of the Public Defender's Office - first he was represented by Attorney Tal Avriel, who was replaced by Attorney Boris Sherman, who was later appointed to a judicial position and was replaced by Attorney Yair Nadashi. Due to disagreements between the defendant and Adv. Nadashi , and despite attempts to restore the representation, the defendant chose to continue the proceeding without representation, despite the court's explanations about the importance of representation (see transcripts of July 16, 2025, July 22, 2025, and August 12, 2025).
- After the evidence was presented, the parties summarized their arguments orally. The accuser summarized her arguments at the meeting held on October 28, 2026, and submitted a "reference document". The defendant summarized his arguments at the meeting on December 28, 2026 and also submitted written summaries; At his request , he was given the opportunity to submit a supplementary summary in writing, but the supplement was not submitted.
- As stated, while the defendant was being represented, he provided a detailed response to the indictment. In addition, during the course of the proceedings and in particular after hearing the prosecution's summaries, the defendant filed a number of motions in which a number of arguments were raised, such as that he was not given a warning prior to the filing of the indictment, allegations of flaws in the investigation and search of his home, claims of invalidation of his confession, allegations of failure to represent, and claims regarding some of the evidence, in particular evidence related to Pepperston (see motions dated November 24, 2025, November 25, 2025, December 15, 2025, 16.12.2025, 23.12.2025, as well as my decisions in these applications). The arguments raised by the defendant in the various motions, as well as the arguments he raised in the summaries, I will discuss the verdict. It should be noted that on a number of points I considered to elaborate in detail and to continue to address the arguments that found expression in the questions that the defense attorney hurled at the witnesses, in light of the fact that the defendant is not represented, out of the utmost care for his rights.
- However, during the hearings and in the motions he submitted, the defendant made improper claims, such as the claim that the nature of the "State of Israel corporation" should be clarified; that he was born free and that the State of Israel decided that he was a citizen "without asking him"; that the judicial system belongs to a "corporation" that must be clarified; as well as claims intended to "formally refute the 12 presumptions of justice" (in the words of the accused); a request that the State Attorney's Office identify herself and clarify on whose behalf she is acting - and such claims. These arguments are rejected outright, they should not have been raised, and there is no need to elaborate beyond that.
- Discussion and Decision
- The verdict will be in accordance with the order presented in the indictment. First, I will address general issues that may have a lateral impact on theissues discussed in the judgment. Afterwards, I will discuss each and every charge, and finally I will address the defendant's claim of protection from justice as well as the allegations of flaws in the authority's conduct.
- General
- An examination of the evidence leads me to the conclusion that the defendant should be convicted of the offenses attributed to him in the indictment, subject to a number of determinations that will be noted in the body of the judgment, all as detailed below. Before I address the offenses attributed to the defendant, I will preface and make a few comments.
- The offenses attributed to the defendant were committed in connection with activity in the "merchant arena". According to Section 44B of the Securities and Exchange Law, a merchant's arena is "any of the following":
")1) A computerized system by which a person buys financial instruments from his clients, on his own account, or sells to his customers, from his own account, financial instruments, in an organized, frequent and systematic manner, except for a system in which all financial instruments bought or sold are financial instruments whose terms were determined in direct negotiations between the parties to the transaction;