Criminal Case 44241-08-23 State of Israel – Tax Authority, Central District Legal Unit – VAT v. Daoud Abdel Hai

Verdict

1. The indictment:
2. In accordance with the facts of the indictment, defendant 2 (hereinafter: "the defendant") is a private company, limited by shares, which was incorporated in Israel under the Companies Law, 5759-1999 (hereinafter: the "Companies Law"), and which was registered for the purpose of the Value Added Tax Law, 5736-1975 (hereinafter: the "VAT Law") as a licensed dealer No. 513243667 in the earthworks, demolition, excavation and development industry.
3. Defendant 1 was registered on all the relevant dates of the indictment as a director and shareholder of the defendant.
4. Defendant 3 served on all relevant dates of the indictment as a manager and in charge of procurement, purchases, subcontractors and suppliers for defendant 2.
5. Between June and November (inclusive) in 2017 (hereinafter: the "Relevant Period"), the defendants received 8 documents pretending to be tax invoices in the name of a dealer named Peleg Chai in a tax appeal 512997115 Company (hereinafter: "Peleg Chai"), without the transactions that are the subject of the invoices being executed in order to evade or evade tax payment (hereinafter: the "False Invoices"). The details of the false invoices were attached as Appendix A to the indictment:
6. Defendant 1 included, during the relevant period, the false invoices in the accounting books of Defendant 2 and deducted the input tax contained in the false invoices in the sum of NIS 296,479 in the periodic reports that they submitted to the Value Added Tax Administration in the name of the defendant.
7. Defendant 3, by virtue of his position as defendant 1, acted in order to cause defendants 1 and 2 to evade or evade paying taxes.
8. In light of the aforesaid, the indictment attributes to defendants 1 and 2 eight offenses of input tax deduction without having a document as stated in section 38 of the law, an offense under  section 117(b)(5) of the law, as well as preparation, management and authorization of another to prepare or manage false ledgers or other false records, an offense under  section 117(b)(6) of the law – all with the aim of evading or using tax payment.  To defendant 3, the indictment attributes an action with the intention of another person evading or evading payment of tax that that person is liable for, an offense under  section 117(b1) of the law.
9. The response to the indictment:
10. The defendants deny what is attributed to them in the indictment.
11. The defendants admit to the counts dealing with the relationship between defendants 1 and 3 and defendant 2 in the framework of the activities of defendant 2 and theirs (sections 1-3 of the indictment).
12. The defendants deny what is stated in section 4 of the indictment and claim that they did not receive fictitious tax invoices, but that they were invoices that were lawfully given on the basis of transactions that were lawfully made and on the basis of an engagement that, at least in their eyes, in real time, was presumed to be a real engagement. The defendants further claim that defendant 3 was the one who was in fact a factor in the engagements with the suppliers.
13. With respect to section 5 of the indictment, the defendants admit to the fact that the invoices were deducted as input tax, but deny the claim of awareness or mental state relating to the alleged falsity of the invoices.
14. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The defendants also deny Sections 6-7 of the indictment.

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)

• The lawsuit case:

13. On January 26, 2025, the prosecution case began to be heard and the testimonies of A.T. 3, Mr. Haim Peleg (hereinafter: "Peleg"), A.T. No. 1, Mr. Haim Cohen (Jerusalem Tax Appeal Investigations) (hereinafter: "Investigator Cohen"), and A.T. No. 2, Mr. Kfir Trabelsi (Jerusalem Tax Appellate Investigations) (hereinafter: "Investigator Trabelsi").
14. On February 17, 2025, the prosecution case continued and the testimonies of A.T. 5, Ms. Orly Rottenstreich Levy (hereinafter: " Rottenstreich"), and A.T. No. 6, Mr. Ihab Padilla (hereinafter: "Padilla"), were heard.
15. On May 18, 2025, the prosecution case continued and the testimonies of A.T. 7, Mr. Ayman Sultan (hereinafter: "Sultan"), and A.T. 9, Mr. Matar Bahjat (hereinafter: "Bahjat"), were heard.
16. On May 28, 2025, the prosecution case continued and the testimonies of Exhibit 10, Mr. Samer Masrawa (hereinafter: "Masarawa"), and Exhibit 8, Mr. Nasser Muhanand (hereinafter: "Nassar"), were heard.
17. On September 30, 2025, the prosecution case ended with the hearing of the testimony of Advocate 4, Mr. Mordechai Flutzer (hereinafter: "Flutzer").
18. The Hafna Affair:
19. On December 25, 2025, the defense case was heard and the testimonies of defendant 1, Mr. Daoud 'Abd al-Hay, and defendant 3, Mr. Nadir 'Abd al-Hai, were heard.
20. The accuser's summaries:
21. The accuser refers to the fact that the indictment is concerned with 8 false tax invoices that were allegedly issued by Peleg Chai in a tax appeal in the total amount of NIS 2,040,480, without any work being done in respect of them, when the appellant illegally deducted taxes in the amount of NIS 296,479.
22. According to the accuser, it was proven that the invoices were false, since Mr. Peleg, the registered owner of Peleg Chai Ltd., testified that the invoices were not his, that his signature was forged and that the logo did not match the original company documents. According to him, he never made transactions with the defendants and did not receive payments from them.  Flutzer (P.A. 4) confirmed that he did not perform work for the defendants and only provided the paperwork, and even admitted and was convicted of delivering false invoices to the defendants in exchange for a commission of 3%, when the funds returned to the defendants minus the commission.
23. The accuser claims that she presented conclusive evidence that all 48 checks issued by defendant 2 on the orders of Peleg Chai were separated into cash that returned to the defendants: 41 checks by defendant 3 himself, 3 checks by Mr. Plutzer (P.A. 4), 3 checks by Mr. Masrawa and 1 check by Mr. Bahjat.
24. According to the accuser, the defendants' version, according to which defendant 3 deducted the checks for another person, is inconsistent with the "know the customer" documents signed by defendant 3, in which it was stated that he was carrying out the activity for defendant 2 and not for someone else.
25. Copied from NevoIn this context, the accuser refers to the fact that Mr. Mohand (A.T. 8) testified that defendant 3 listed checks for him as a courier of Peleg Chai and that the testimony of Mr. Bhagat indicates that a check that was ostensibly intended to supply "Peleg Chai" for earthworks, was in fact used as payment to an electrician who carried out private work in the banquet hall of defendant 1.
26. The accuser wishes to prefer the version of the investigator Haim Cohen (Exhibit 1), who documented early conversations with Mr. Masrawa (Exhibit 10) in which Ner Masrawa admitted that he had deducted checks in Tira and distributed the money to waiters and employees according to the instructions of Defendant 1, over his evasive testimony in court.
27. The accuser refers to the fact that defendant 1 did not know how to give answers regarding the supplier "Peleg Chai" and referred to an agreement that he did not present, and later changed his version and claimed that most of the agreements in the industry are gentlemen. The accuser sees this as a "suppressed version" that weighs little and is intended to legitimize the fact that there is no agreement or delivery notes.
28. In addition, the accuser claims that the presence of Mr. Flutzer's guarantee stamp in the defendants' offices – a stamp stamped on the back of all the checks – proves their direct involvement in the creation of the false documents. The accuser emphasizes that defendant 3 evaded giving an answer regarding the location of the stamp and claimed that it was found in all the police officers in the country.  This is when the testimonies of the NPCs indicate that the checks came to them signed and stamped.
29. The accuser refers to the power of attorney in which Mr. Plutzer, allegedly, authorized defendant 3 to deduct Peleg Chai's checks, and emphasizes that the signature of the verification is that of a person named Pavel Zabailov. The accuser further emphasizes that Mr. Flutzer denied the power of attorney and the signature, while defendant 3 gave contradictory and convoluted versions about him.  According to the accuser, the power of attorney was a fiction intended to enable the defendants to get the money back into their hands.
30. The accuser is of the opinion that it is appropriate to reject Mr. Flutzer's version in court – a version that the accuser claims stems from a thesis raised by the defense attorney and adopted by the defendants – according to which all of his conduct was done vis-à-vis the bookkeeper of defendant 2. This version, according to the accuser, contradicts the statements of the defendants in the interrogation, according to which defendant 3 is responsible for standing in front of suppliers and customers, while defendant 3 himself confirmed that he was the one who dealt with Peleg Chai and gave the checks to the person who brought the invoices.  This is without any mention of the bookkeeper.  The accuser further argues that the defense's failure to bring the bookkeeper to testify establishes a presumption of fact that the defendants are obligated.
31. The accuser claims that the evidence and testimonies prove that defendant 1 and defendant 3 were aware of the facts of the indictment and that they were aware that the invoices they received from Mr. Flutzer on behalf of Peleg Chai were false and were intended to reduce the tax liability of defendant 2.
32. The accuser rejects the defense's thesis regarding the "additional person." In this context, the accuser refers to the fact that Mr. Flutzer's version was incoherent and evasive, but he testified that he did not perform any work.
33. The accuser claims that she proved, beyond any doubt, both the factual element and the mental element of the offenses described in the indictment, in relation to each of the defendants. In light of the above, the accuser asks the court to convict the defendants of the offenses of deducting inputs without a lawful document, maintaining false ledgers (defendants 1 and 2), and assisting another to evade or evade tax (defendant 3).
34. The defendant's summaries:
35. According to the defendants, they approved the nature of A. Company's business activity. Elhai earthworks and development in a tax appeal (defendant 2) and the deduction of the tax invoices that are the subject of the indictment by the amounts stated therein.  They claim that the invoices received in real time were issued and delivered on the basis of transactions that were made lawfully and in respect of a business engagement that they envisioned to be a genuine engagement.
36. According to them, none of the three defendants acted in deducting the invoices with the intention and purpose of evading the payment of taxes, and therefore the mental elements of the offense attributed to them were not met.
37. The defendants are of the opinion that there is an inexplicable delay in the case, which establishes an independent cause for the cancellation of the indictment due to the claim of protection from justice and deviation from the deadlines set by the law and the instructions of the appellant, the family and the State Attorney's Office. According to them, the delay harmed their defense, for example, by blocking the possibility of ascertaining who the "additional person" was, and caused the memory of the witnesses to be eroded.
38. The defendants also claim selective enforcement due to the existence of additional clients against whom the accuser did not act (except for one of them).
39. The defendants refer to the testimony of Mr. Peleg, the owner of Peleg Chai, and claim that there is a huge and inexplicable time gap of more than 5 years between the dates of the investigations. In any case, the defendants are of the opinion that Mr. Peleg did not contribute to the critical questions about who introduced himself to them, how the engagement was envisaged, and whether they knew that Mr. Flutzer did not have the real right.
40. The defendants also refer to the testimony of Investigator Cohen and point out that he could not provide an explanation for the many time differences in the interrogations. Moreover, according to them, Investigator Cohen was unable to present or contradict the compatibility between their versions, and this weakens the accuser's claim of a suppressed or artificial version.
41. In this context, the defendants further claim that the interrogators' failure to examine Daoud's version of the bookkeeper and the accountant acts in accordance with the accuser's duty.
42. With regard to Ms. Rottenstreich's testimony, the defendants claim that the witness did confirm that Mr. Flutzer was the one who received the money for the check-cashing, but that she had no personal connection to the criminal detachment activity – the minimum wage at the relevant time. She also confirmed that the investigators did not ask for an ID card of the actual check port.
43. According to the defendants, this fact, together with the testimony of Mr. Sultan, strengthens the claim that Mr. Flutzer also succeeded in misleading the criminal detachment – the minimum wage itself – and that he built an orderly external representation supported by references. In their view, the "money lane" does not directly link Dowd to cash or awareness of tax evasion, but rather strengthens Mr. Flutzer's false portrayal.
44. The defendants claim that Mr. Bahjat explained that when he was paid for his work from the defendant, the check was issued in his name. According to the defendants, this figure weakens the accuser's assumption that each check reflects a suspicious route of movement.
45. The defendants point out that Mr. Masrawa vehemently denied any connection to the defendant and the deduction of the checks, and claimed that Mr. Fadila lied in his testimony. According to the defendants, Mr. Nasser also confirmed that Nader had reached a criminal breakdown – his minimum wage while accompanied by the alleged owner of the Peleg Chai company.  According to the defendants, his testimony strengthened Peleg Chai's representation of ownership in real time, and that Mr. Plutzer succeeded in tricking everyone with his artificial representations.
46. With regard to Mr. Flutzer, the accuser's main witness, the defendants point out that he has a glorious criminal record, and claim that his testimony in court was "full of contradictions." According to them, Mr. Flutzer is "anything but a 'solid rock,'" and his testimony creates cracks and contradictions in the accuser's version and establishes the possibility of the involvement of other parties.
47. The defendants claim that Mr. Flutzer did not deny the existence of "another person" who worked with him, and that he himself confessed to a tax appeal during his interrogation only after a plea bargain. According to them, Flutzer's testimony is "a shattered, shaky, qualified, volatile reed, devoid of any continuity and line preservation."
48. On the other hand, the defendants believe that Daoud and Nader's version was coherent and did not contradict the division of duties between them.
49. Daoud (Defendant 1) testified that he works in various fields and employs hundreds of employees, and therefore it is not possible to attribute to him personal acquaintance with any supplier. He unequivocally confirmed that Nader is the entity that manages the earthworks field and is responsible for procurement, subcontractors and suppliers.
50. According to Daoud, the earthworks industry is mostly conducted on the basis of gentlemen's contracts, not necessarily signed contracts. The payment mechanism included an orderly process with Nader's approval and the transfer of an account to an accountant, and he only physically signed the checks.
51. According to the defendants, Daoud's signature on the checks is not equivalent to personal knowledge of the nature of any transaction or supplier. His version was consistent over time, not a "conquered version."
52. The defendants claim that the failure to summon the bookkeeper and the accountant to testify constitutes an investigative failure that acts to fulfill the accuser's obligation.
53. Nader (Defendant 3) testified that he was a field man who acted on the basis of what he saw as a legitimate engagement, and not a document editor, a lawyer or an accountant. According to the defendants, the accuser's claim that he should have identified formal defects is inconsistent with his position and abilities.
54. The defendants believe that Nader's testimony strengthens the defense's version on the subjective level – he perceived Mr. Plutzer as having authorization and valid documents – and on the objective level, since he did not act alone and did not conceal his steps.
55. The defendants claim that they operated in a dynamic business world with field factors and an orderly accounting mechanism. On the other hand, Mr. Flutzer created a credible representation, and Nader acted on the basis of this representation.  Therefore, according to them, no subjective awareness or special purpose to evade tax has been proven.
56. The defendants point out that it is necessary to prove a strict mental element of a "special purpose" to evade or evade paying taxes, when according to them it is not enough that the invoices are objectively false, but that they must prove their actual awareness of the falsehood and a special purpose for tax evasion.
57. The defendants claim that the accuser invests a great deal of effort in describing the "money route," but that a monetary path, even if proven, is not the same as a path of special intent. It can arouse suspicion but does not replace proof of full awareness and a special purpose.  According to them, the accuser did not prove the aggravating mental element.
58. According to them, the situation in which the defendant acted on the basis of an engagement that was presumed to be a true engagement, or that there was no proof of full awareness of the lie, drops the ground for the aggravating mental element. The accuser, according to them, mixes the question of whether the invoices were objectively false with the question of whether the defendants knew about it, and whether they acted with the aim of evading tax.  This is when the evidence does not complete the transition from the first question to the other two.
59. With regard to the conviction of defendant 2 as a corporation, the defendants claim that the rule in section 23 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977 (hereinafter: "the Penal Law") applies which requires proof of a criminal act and thought of the person who acted, as the corporation's act and thought, when the requirement for a special purpose makes the burden even more burdensome. According to them, the functional division in the company weakens the basis for attributing to the company a conscious and special corporate intent.
60. In summary, the defendants argue that case law states that it is not possible to convict of offenses under section 117(b) of the Tax Appeals Law in the absence of positive proof of the mental element, and this burden lies entirely on the accuser, and she must prove this with real evidence.
61. In light of all of the above, the defendants ask the court to order acquittals, in the absence of an inability to determine the existence of a special criminal intent.

• Discussion:

59. Prosecution witness Haim Peleg
60. Haim Peleg testified that the invoices that are the subject of the indictment are not invoices of his company. He stated that they were "fake invoices that do not belong to my company."  He noted that his company had not yet reached the invoice number 5501, and at the relevant time (2017-2018) it was about 1,000 or so.  Haim Peleg added that the stamp and signature on the invoices are not his or that of someone he is familiar with, and that the telephone and fax details in the title of the invoice are incorrect.  He emphasized that the A.  Elhai Daoud Earthworks and Development Ltd. is not a known customer, and the details of the works described in the invoices are not works that are known to him or performed by his company.  In addition, he confirmed that they did not work in the Meir Hospital parking lot, did not transfer trailers, did not deal with waste in Herzliya, did not work in the roundabouts in Bat Hefer, and did not work on fence projects in an excavation area in Modi'in or at the Herzliya Central Bus Station[1].
61. In its summary, the defense noted that even in its response to the indictment, it did not dispute that Peleg was not connected to the events of the indictment, and that the company he owned was used without his knowledge and/or consent by parties that stole its identity[2].
62. This argument is inconsistent with logic and common sense. No explanation was given by the defense, and certainly not satisfactorily, as to why any other person would make unauthorized use of any company for the purpose of carrying out legitimate work under the details of another company, falsely identify itself as its owner, receive checks that will be forced to be redeemed in crooked ways, instead of opening a licensed dealer or establishing a company and operating it lawfully.
63. Another who used her identity towards a number of different business parties in a way that the decision can assume
64. The idea that the defendants themselves were misled by the witness Plutzer and the "other person" who was acting alongside him[3].
65. I do not accept this argument of the defense. The fact that others also offset fictitious invoices of Peleg Chai does not strengthen the thesis that criminal elements used the company's name to carry out legitimate transactions, as the defendants claim – as stated above, the business logic behind such conduct has not been presented and is unacceptable.
66. Unfortunately, experience in these types of cases shows that when there is a distribution of fictitious invoices by a licensed dealer or a certain company, the invoices are often distributed to more than one dealer.
67. In the case of Peleg Chai in particular, it emerged that the prosecution witness Plotzer used its details and identity to distribute fictitious invoices to a number of dealers, not only to the defendants. Flutzer spoke about this in his interrogation[4] and testimony in court[5].
68. The defense itself noted in its summaries that the accuser acted against one of those 6 other dealers and took criminal action against him[6] in a manner that in itself indicates that this was not a matter of using the company's identity for the purpose of performing legitimate work, but for the purpose of distributing fictitious invoices.
69. I will note that the defense refrained from summoning any of those 6 other dealers in the framework of the defense case in order to present evidence that legitimate work was carried out and not the use of merely fictitious invoices.
70. I will mention that a party's failure to present evidence that could have acted in its favor constitutes circumstantial evidence that strengthens the prosecution's evidence (Criminal Appeal 8606/22 Vardinian v. State of Israel, para. 36 (8 September 2024)).
71. Prosecution Witness Ehab Padilla
72. The defense argued that the testimony of the prosecution witness Padilla shows that the NASP he owned served as a trading arena for the fragmentation of checks of all kinds, and that Witness Padilla confirmed that Defendant 3 acted openly without concealing details in a manner that undermines the thesis of a secret operation that was known for tax evasion. According to the defense, defendant 3 acted on his own initiative to accompany occasional partiesto cash checks in order to receive a payment of hundreds of shekels as legal fees, when he served as a "trust link" vis-à-vis the money changers and a secure address vis-à-vis Jews and Arabs, and his testimony does not prove a criminal mechanism of tax evasion, other than proof of defendant 3's behavior in order to expand personal sources[7] of income.
73. I do not accept this argument. The accuser did not attribute to the defendants a thesis of a clandestine action to commit the offense of tax evasion, but rather a sophisticated circular action in which the company supposedly pays the supplier – Peleg Chai – but in the end the funds return to the defendants in cash.
74. The defense's argument that defendant 3 decided to accompany occasional parties to cash checks was not supported by any evidence other than defendant 3's unreliable version.
75. The defense emphasized that defendant 3 was a safe address for Jews and Arabs in public, but refrained from bringing a single person for whom defendant 3 served as a trust link.
76. On the refusal to bring evidence that could support the defendant's version – see above.
77. The defense did not argue against the credibility of witness Padilla and did not deal at all with the accuser's arguments regarding the significance of his testimony, according to which he stated that he knew defendant 3 as an employee of defendants 1 and 2, it was defendant 3 who listed the checks as recorded in the check locating report (P/31) and received the cash in his hands .He also testified about the checks of the prosecution witnesses, 9 meters in Hajat and 10 Samer Masrawah, who were the ones who received the money from him in exchange for the checks of defendant 2 that were registered under the order of Peleg Chai that they deducted from him[8].
78. An examination of the testimony of Mr. Padilla shows that he did testify that the persons who deducted 12 checks of Defendant 2 to the beneficiary of the Peleg Chai Company were Defendant 3 as well as Samer Masarwa and Bahjat Matar[9], that Defendant 3 works for Defendant 2[10] and so on until the prosecution 10 Samer Masarwa[11] and that the deduction money was paid in cash[12].
79. Witness Padilla was referred to the personal guarantee stamp on the back of each of the checks[13], but although the defense denied the claim that it was a stamp that was in the office of defendant 1 on which Witness Flutzer had signed, and claimed that it was a stamp that exists in every police station[14], it refrained from asking Witness Padilla whether he was the person who signed Flutzer on the personal guarantee for the check and whether he had such a stamp. She did the same with regard to the other money changers who testified in court.
80. The defense's refusal to cross-examine the disputed point has evidentiary implications for the defendants' duty (Criminal Appeal 5136/22 Locker et al. v. State of Israel (November 10, 2024)).
81. Moreover, the defense referred to the fact that witness Padilla did not rule out the possibility that Defendant 3 appeared in the police station together with an authorized person on behalf of Peleg Chai[15], but refrained from referring to the fact that witness Padilla said in the same breath, "Listen, it's 2017, it could be that Peleg Chai came with him and I don't know, it's between them. He may have given him the money, except for the checks.  After all, there is his (unclear) on the back of the checks"[16], in a way that indicates that the guarantee on the back of the check was not executed by Padilla, but the check reached him when it was signed.
82. The defense also ignored the argument that the defense documents marked N/3 to N/6 were submitted and scanned in a confusing manner, when a perusal of them in the correct order as they appeared in the statement taken from witness Padilla, which was not submitted, shows that document N/3 (the first page of which in the interrogation was marked A.P.14) shows that defendant 3 stated in it that he was an employee of defendant 2, that the details of the business were defendant 2 and that he was not carrying out the action for someone else. The scope of the activity recorded NIS 10,000 and the source of the funds was recorded as an "employer", when on the very same day Defendant 3 deducted a check for NIS 80,000, in a manner that shows that Defendant 3 deducted a check issued by the company in which he works, Defendant 2, in favor of Peleg Chai, while in this action it is not performed for Peleg Chai but for Defendants 1 and 2, contrary to the testimony of Defendant 3 in his interrogation and in court.
83. At my request, the full and correct document was submitted on May 10, 2025. An examination of it shows that there is substance to the accuser's claims – which the defense ignored.
84. It emerged from the document that on the same date that Defendant 3 deducted a check for NIS 80,000 of Defendant 2 in favor of Peleg Hai, on February 28, 2017, he signed a Know the Client form in which it was stated that he had come alone, that he was carrying out the activity for his employer, Defendant 2, that he was not carrying out the activity for someone else, and that the source of the funds for which the services were provided was the employer – Defendant 2.
85. My opinion, as that of the accuser, is that this document should support the accuser's incriminating thesis as detailed above.
86. Prosecution witness Muhannad Nasser
87. I got the impression that the witness was not eager to be in a position where he serves as a prosecution witness against the defendants. Already at the beginning of the testimony, the witness said, "I don't remember anything, but what I gave in my testimony is what I am, it's been since then, what's in the testimony is what it was.  What I can say now."[17]  The defense agreed to submit his statement after a preliminary interrogation and the witness was cross-examined[18] in which he said that defendant 3 had filled out a "Know the Client" form in his handwriting[19].
88. Even before he was asked questions, the witness said that he was being asked for things that happened in 2017-2018 and he does not remember[20].
89. The discomfort was so pronounced that the defense counsel reassured the witness: "Wait a minute, one second, brother second. No, I'm not that, I'm really gentle, it's all good.  It's important to me because I represent them, I want to show, OK, so be a little patient with me."[21]  The witness later confirmed that defendant 3 arrived together with the owner of Peleg Chai, as recorded in the Know the Customer form[22].  When asked if there is a possibility that the presence of the owners of the Peleg Chai company at the site is a lie, otherwise he would not have approved the form, he replied that he does not remember what happened in 2017, many things have happened since then, and referred to the message he gave and the documents attached to it[23].
90. An examination of the witness's statement – which was submitted in exchange for the main investigation – shows that there is no mention of the presence of another person together with defendant 3 when he came to carry out the liquidation of checks. The witness said in his statement that defendant 3 had deducted the checks that were presented to him, including a photocopy of defendant 3's ID card, and said that defendant 3 had declared to him that he  was a messenger of Peleg Chai and had given a power of attorney to act on their behalf vis-à-vis money  changers, and had even given a copy of the power of attorney[24].
91. Had Peleg Chai's "owner" been present together with defendant 3 at the time of the checks being cashed, as well as at the filling out of the Know the Client form, the witness would have been expected to say this already in his interrogation in 2021. It would have been equally expected that if the owner of the company had been present, the witness would have  stated his details and photocopied his identity card, just as he had photocopied the identity card of defendant 3.
92. Moreover, if the "owner" of Peleg Chai had been present at the place, it would have been expected that the witness would have explained why a power of attorney from Plutzer, as the "owner" of Peleg Chai, was also required for defendant 3 to handle the matters of deduction of Peleg Chai's checks.
93. In addition, as was done in the case of the witness Padilla, despite the claim that the personal guarantee stamp is present in every change, the defense refrained from asking the witness Nasr whether the personal guarantee stamp appearing in the checks that were deducted in his NP was signed by him or whether the checks reached him when they were already signed and whether he signed the checks himself.
94. These statements required clarification by the defense in cross-examination, but the defense refrained from asking further questions after the witness retracted his confirmation that the owner of the company was present at the scene and said that he did not remember.
95. Refraining from cross-examination on a relevant question has evidentiary implications for the defendants' obligation. See the ruling above.
96. Therefore, I do not accept the defense's argument in its summaries that the witness confirmed that he came to the police station accompanied by the owners of the Peleg Chai company[25], and the conclusion that the defense seeks to draw as if Flutzer arrived together with defendant 3 to the police station strengthens the claim that Plutzer succeeded in deceiving everyone with his artificial representations[26].
97. I determine that the witness deducted checks of defendant 2 that were issued in favor of Peleg Chai and were signed with a guarantee stamp and a guarantee signature of Flutzer when they were reached by defendant 3, who presented himself as an emissary of Peleg Chai, presented a power of attorney according to which he was authorized to represent Peleg Chai before money changers.
98. Prosecution witness Ayman Sultan
99. I got the impression that even a witness is not eager to serve as a prosecution witness against the defendants. The witness said that he finished working with the Tax Authority 5-6 years ago[27] , and immediately afterwards, when he was told that he had given a notice to the Tax Authority and was asked if he remembered who brought the documents that were attached to his statement, he replied, "Everything is written in the testimony that I have with you, I have nothing to add."[28]  The collection of documents he submitted and attached to his statement were marked P/32.  When asked who deducted the checks in which the client was Mordechai Flutzer, he replied, "It's him, it's written with you," and when he was asked again to say the words he said in his interrogation so that they would be heard in court, he replied again, "I'm telling you, it's him and it's written in your testimony."[29]  Only when the plaintiff insisted on knowing who "he" was and what the name was, did the witness reply, "Pultzer Mordechai."[30]  Subsequently, photocopies of the identity card and Rav-Kav card of the witness Mordechai Flutzer were submitted and marked.  Later, he was again asked to tell about the connection between Mordechai Plutzer and Defendant 1 and replied, "Everything is recorded in your testimony, I have nothing to add to it."[31]  Even when it was explained to him that the testimony was not before the court, he insisted on not giving an answer, he said that he had not been in this job for a long time and that was a long time ago, and what he said since then will not change and he has nothing to add[32], he said that he was read now what he said and he does not remember 100% what he said[33], and what the plaintiff needs to know - everything is inside (meaning in the statement he gave).[34]  From the words of the accuser's counsel, it emerged that the witness said in his statement that Plutzer was the owner of the company, without any dispute on the part of the defense[35].
100. In the cross-examination, the witness's approach suddenly changed. After the defense attorney introduced himself as counsel for defendants 1 and 3, the witness, who a moment earlier had refused to confirm basic details and repeatedly referred to the statement he had given while saying that he did not remember, quickly and confidently confirmed what the defense had presented to him[36]:

"Adv. Solomon:          Okay, in the discount vouchers he didn't ask you, I just want you to confirm that all of them have Flutzer Mordechai listed?