The witness, Mr. Sultan: Yes.
Adv. Solomon: You approve. And I'm telling you that the only one who came to cash the checks at your exchange was Flutzer Mordechai.
The witness, Mr. Sultan: Yes.
Adv. Solomon: No, no, nobody, nobody, he himself.
The witness, Mr. Sultan: Yes, he himself.
Adv. Solomon: And I'm telling you that he himself received the money in cash and I'm telling you that he told you that he was the owner of a company,
The witness, Mr. Sultan: He introduced himself.
Adv. Solomon: Peleg Chai. He said that he was the owner of Peleg Chai, the company whose checks he gave you and I tell you that you stood by it and identified him and took a photocopy of his ID card, which is the only one that was in front of you.
The witness, Mr. Sultan: Yes.
Adv. Solomon: And he is the one who is the representative of the company,
The witness, Mr. Sultan: That's what he presented himself.
Adv. Solomon: Peleg Chai.
The witness, Mr. Sultan: That's what he presented himself."
- Naturally, the defense wishes to rely on this version of the witness and to base on it a finding according to which Flutzer came to Sultan's police station alone[37], when in the defense's opinion the obvious conclusion is that Flutzer created an orderly external representation, supported by references, as a person who serves as the holder of a legitimate right to operate the Peleg Chai company[38].
- I do not accept this position or the conclusion reached by the defense.
- First of all, it should be said that I do not trust the witness's version, which I was under the impression that he did his best to assist the defendants, and I did not find that it was possible to base a factual finding on what he said. This witness did indeed present a photocopy of Plutzer's ID card and Rav-Kav card, but these could have reached him from the defendants as well. In this context, I will mention that defendant 3 also said in his interrogation at the Tax Authority that he had a Flutzer ID card in the office[39].
- The witness did not present any document signed by Plutzer, including the "Know the Client" documents, as other people discussed above did. The documents B/32 are copies of receipt discount vouchers of 8 checks that were deducted between 22 August 2017 and 14 April 2018 and are not signed by Flutzer or any other person, except for the checks themselves with the personal guarantee stamp on the back of the check, which appears on all the checks issued by Defendant 2, in respect of which Plotzer claimed that it was signed in the offices of Defendant 2 before Defendant 1, as will be detailed below.
- Moreover, Sultan's statement that Flutzer came to him alone is also inconsistent with the version of Defendant 3 himself, who said that Flutzer and the "religious" were with him at the balls, and when asked to clarify his words regarding the presence of Flutzer and the religious at all times at all the balls, he said that Plotzer was with him at Sultan's reception once or twice[40]. When asked to clarify, he went so far as to say that Sultan had both Flutzer and the "religious" with him[41], and repeated this twice.
- In this context, it should be said that the defense was expected to question the witness Sultan about this version of defendant 3, but it refrained from doing so, and this matter will be credited to its obligation.
- Moreover, the defense ceased not only by refraining from cross-examining the witness on the version, but also after the accuser noted in her summaries that the words of the witness Sultan contradicted the words of defendant 3 as detailed above[42], the defense completely ignored this and refrained from dealing with this contradiction. This matter will also be credited to its obligation.
- 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 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 , or whether he himself signed the guarantee with Plutzer on the back of the checks.
- Refraining from an investigation in this matter has evidentiary significance for the duty of defense.
- Prosecution witness Matar Bajat
- The witness said in the main interrogation that in the past he had his own company of earthworks, trucks and tractors, and in the years 2010-2020 he worked with defendant 1 in transportation. Then he worked for the electric company laying cables, without the trucks he sold[43]. He said he sold the trucks about 10 years ago[44]. The witness stated that he did not know Peleg Chai, Haim Peleg, Mordechai Flutzer[45]. The witness was presented with a card from the City Father Department, in which it appears that he withdrew 800005975 check for NIS 10,000 of defendant 2, which was issued in the name of the beneficiary, Peleg Chai.
- From the very beginning of the testimony it is clear that this witness is trying to walk carefully between a desire not to harm the defendants, and his desire to maintain his dignity and credibility and not to say anything that is not true.
- Thus, at the beginning of the interrogation regarding the said check, he spoke at length, saying that he had said in the interrogation that he had written checks in the city pad when he was pressed at the bank because it was a legally approved and not partisan NSF[46], later he said that he was in the city pad only once a year... Then he would exchange a check with the city dad that he would legally receive from one of the companies he works with[47]. Later, he said that when he had a check in the city pad, he had to sign forms and documents, but the check in question was not signed by him[48]. He later said that in his interrogation as well, he confirmed everything the interrogator asked, but as for the check itself, if he entered the city pad and replaced it, then the police had to sign it on the check with Bajat's ID card and also give him a receipt invoice. He later confirmed that he had done so with the city pad, but with all the documents that the city pad had to give him, he did not know how the check got into the investigators[49]' hands. Later, he repeatedly claimed that if he detailed this check with the city fad, there should be something in front of the city pad to the witness, a receipt tax invoice[50].
- After all these twists and turns - the clear impression was that the entire purpose of which was not to say that the witness had received a check belonging to defendant 2, in which the beneficiary is Peleg Chai, from defendant 1 - the plaintiff refreshed the witness's memory from his interrogation at the Tax Authority on February 1, 2023, and then it turned out that in the interrogation the witness was also presented with his ID card as received from the city dad[51], the witness confirmed that he had received this specific check from defendant 2[52]. He further stated that he received the check for work he had done in letters in the hall of defendant 1, that he had a problem in the hall, and the witness took care of the malfunction[53], and in return the witness received from defendant 1 the money in this check, which he deducted from the money-changer and received the money in cash[54]. He also said that he did not know why defendant 1 wrote this check Peleg Chai on the check and he did not know who Peleg Chai was[55], and when asked why he did not have his signature on the check, he explained that there was no signature of him but of a guarantor, because that way he could deduct it and receive the money[56]. The witness confirmed this and added, "But when you asked me, I answered what you want."[57]
- The defense began the cross-examination of the witness by saying, "I'll ask you a few questions right away, and it seems that in your interrogation the interrogator wrote what he wanted because it didn't fit with what you said earlier."[58] Later on, the words were presented explicitly to the witness and he happily adopted them [59] after realizing that the words he said in his interrogation offended defendant 1:
Adv. Solomon: Okay, I don't have my signature now I'm telling you that the whole answer they read to you is that there is a signature of a personal guarantee here, so you didn't have to sign It's not something you said, it's that the interrogator put words in the interrogation hereBecause if you say that, it's a check I received from the company "A. Elhai Daoud", I think it was for private work that I did for the hall, there was a malfunction in the hall and I managed the workers who took care of the malfunction and in return I received the money from Daoud, this check was my payment from Daoud, I deducted this check from the money changer and received the money in cash. I don't know why Daoud wrote that name on the check, I don't know and I don't know who Peleg Chai is.