Criminal Case 44241-08-23 State of Israel – Tax Authority, Central District Legal Unit – VAT v. Daoud Abdel Hai - part 3

The witness, Mr. Bhajat:        That's the truth, I say.

Adv. Solomon:           Okay, now it could be that you didn't list this check at all and it didn't reach you?

The witness, Mr. Bhajat:        It could be anything".

116. I got the impression that the witness changed his version of testimony in court so as not to harm the defendants. The words that the witness said in his interrogation – as presented at the hearing and read quoted from the statement by the defense attorney [60] – were clear, explicit and detailed.  Thus, the statement that he received the check for electrical work that he performed for defendant 1, who is the owner of a banquet hall, a detail whose correctness turned out to be true in the testimony of defendant 1[61] and was consistent with the statements of the witness Bajat about his occupation with electricity as detailed above.
117. Needless to say, despite the claim that "this is not something you said, it was the investigator who put words into the interrogation here," none of the investigators who testified in the case were asked about it. Refraining from an investigation will be attributed to the duty of defense.
118. After these words, the defense attorney moved on to a very guiding cross-examination, in which he asked the witness to "be with him"[62], asked the witness to give short answers[63] and again asked him why he was talking so much and asked him to give short answers[64] when the witness did not confirm the theses presented to him, all in order to extract from the witness statements that could not have been received by Peleg Chai[65], that the witness did not receive this check from defendant 1 and that this check did not pass through him at all[66].  That if Defendant 1 had given the witness a check, he would have written on it the name of the witness and not of Peleg Chai[67] – the answers to which did not inspire any confidence and it is clear that they were given after the witness understood what he was expected to say in order to assist the defendants.
119. I do not accept the defense's argument in its summaries that it is possible that the check that appeared on the card as such that it was deducted by the witness Matar Bajat is in fact a mistake[68].
120. In this regard, the defendants are obligated to consider the fact that the check appeared on the ticket in the name of the witness Bahjat, and insofar as they sought to undermine confidence in the authenticity of the card, the defense should have questioned the owner of the NSF, the prosecution's witness, Ihab Fadila, in this matter, but it refrained from doing so. This refusal will be attributed to the defendants' obligation.
121. The witness Padilla said in his testimony that some of the checks were deducted by Matar Bahjat, and after a refresher by the plaintiff who referred Padilla to his statement, he confirmed that Bahjat deducted one check in the amount of NIS 10,000[69], in a manner consistent with the Exhibit 32 card. The defense cross-examined Padilla what he knew to say about this check, to which he replied that Bajat Matar was the owner of the business, he had a card in the NSF, he came, deducted the check and took cash[70].  Fadila was asked in cross-examination whether he knew of a connection between Bhagat and Peleg Chai and replied that he had not investigated the matter[71].
122. In other words, contrary to the defense's argument, not only does the card meet the defendants' obligation, but also Padilla's testimony, which was not concealed, there was no attempt to undermine it, and even the defense did not argue against its reliability in its summaries.
123. Therefore, I determine in relation to this witness that he received from defendant 1 a check for NIS 10,000 from defendant 2, which was issued in favor of the Peleg Chai company, signed with a stamp of guarantee by the witness Flutzer, in exchange for his work in the hall of defendant 1, which he deducted at the city pad and received his consideration in cash.
124. Prosecution witness Samer Masarwa
125. The witness denied that he had deducted checks from the city police station and initially claimed that he did not have a credit card at all[72]. The witness confirmed that the ID card found in the police station belonged to him[73].  Later, after he was shown a photocopy of the credit card found in the police station, he confirmed that he had a credit card at the time[74].  Later, he confirmed the details of his licensed dealer that were found in the NSFP[75].  Even after he was shown that there was an interrogator who spoke to him and that he had told the investigator in a phone call that he had deducted checks for defendant 1 and that documents had been presented by the police officer that he was there, he persisted in denying it[76].  The witness was confronted with what he said in the interrogation in which he was presented with his documents found in the police station, then he said that he did not know where it came from, and was asked by the plaintiff whether he had complained about it or contacted the police[77], to which he replied that it did not bother him[78].  In favor contradicted the statements of the witness Ihab Fadila, according to which he detailed checks to the witness that he knew the witness as an employee of defendant 1.  To this, the witness replied evasively that he was not an employee of Defendant 1, but refrained from responding to the witness Fadila's statement that he had deducted his checks[79].  Later on, the witness's statement was submitted by the prosecution for the exact location of the notice being collected, not for the software[80].
126. The witness's cross-examination began by saying, "Well, let's hear now, and it seems that all the prosecutor asked you, the attorney, is that he relied on the testimonies of people who didn't tell the truth or that he made things up for you that you definitely didn't say in the interrogation."[81]
127. I will mention that despite the claim that "people did not tell the truth", i.e., the witness Ihab Fadila, who testified that the witness Masarwa had deducted checks from him for Defendant 1, in the cross-examination of Witness Padilla and in the summaries of the defense, no argument was raised against his reliability.
128. Later, the witness was shown to say in the interrogation that apart from the fact that he had seen trucks with 'Abd Hai written on them, he had no connection and had no contact with them, and he confirmed the aforesaid[82], confirmed that he did not know Defendant 1, El Peleg Chai, Haim Peleg, Mordechai Flutzer, did not deduct 3 checks that appeared in Padilla's office and were not in his possession[83]. The witness confirmed that he did not know the signatures on any of the checks[84] and did not recognize his signature on any of them[85].
129. The witness was asked if he remembered what happened in the phone conversation with the interrogator and replied that it was years ago, but he did not deny the existence of a conversation[86]. He confirmed that the spare parts of the bridge – which appeared in the details of the licensed dealer who is with the witness Padilla – are his, this is a business that has been closed[87].  The witness was asked if he had an explanation as to why Witness Padilla did not take a credit card for Defendant 3 and for Witness Masarwa yes, and why Witness Padilla filled out forms for Defendant 3 and for Witness Masarwa not.  To this, he replied that he did not know Padilla at all[88].
130. The witness's testimony did not leave a reliable impression and the impression was that he denied that he had deducted checks for defendant 1 in order not to complicate him in his testimony.
131. In contrast to the unreliable version of the witness Masarwa in court, I have before my eyes memoranda drawn up by interrogator Haim Cohen after he had conversations with the witness – conversations that the witness did not deny.
132. In one conversation, on January 30, 2023, when he was summoned for interrogation, the witness was told by Masarwa that the interrogator was holding checks that he had deducted that belonged to defendant 1, and when asked if he knew defendant 1, he answered in the affirmative and said that he once worked for him[89].
133. In another conversation, on February 5, 2023, when the interrogator called to remind the witness that they had scheduled to meet to take testimony on February 7, 2023 in Taybeh, the witness told the interrogator that he had thought about when he had deducted Defendant 1's checks and remembered that he had worked for Defendant 1 in his banquet hall. According to him, he managed a number of waiters and workers, some of whom were from the Occupied Territories.  Defendant 1 sent the witness to deduct checks in Tira.  He distributed the money he received to the waiters and employees according to the instructions of defendant 1[90].
134. I will mention that the investigator Haim Cohen testified and in addition to submitting the aforementioned memoranda, he briefly described their content and the circumstances of their writing[91]. In his cross-examination, he was not asked a single hint about the circumstances of the writing of the memoranda, the content of the statements, and no claim was raised that the things that were recorded were not said by the witness, even though at that time the defense already had the witness's statement in the interrogation[92], in which he retracted what he had said in conversations with Investigator Cohen.
135. Refraining from interrogating a material question has evidentiary weight for the duty of defense.
136. I found that the witness's statements to the investigator as documented above were preferable to his version in court after I had reviewed the memoranda containing actual and complete content, including a detailed explanation of why and under what circumstances the witness deducted the checks he received from defendant 1. These are things that are anchored in the context, inter alia, the fact that Defendant 1 has an event hall.
137. An examination of the witness's statement taken from him on February 7, 2023, shows that even then he did not have an explanation for the sharp change in his version compared to his conversations with Investigator Cohen two days or a week earlier.
138. His false version in the notice and in the court that he did not have Ihab Padilla in the city police station and did not deduct the checks that were written on the card in his name[93] was contradicted by Padilla's reliable testimony, as well as in the fact that identification documents of the witness were found in Padilla's possession, which the witness did not have any explanation on this matter as well, and certainly does not satisfy him.
139. The witness was asked by the interrogator about things he had said to him two days and a week earlier that were recorded in the memoranda, to which he gave answers that were already clear to be false, when at the beginning of the interrogation he was asked if he knew Defendant 1 and answered in the negative[94], and when he was asked about the fact that he told the interrogator on the phone that he knew Defendant 1 and why he was changing it now, he gave an evasive answer: "I did not change my mind and my version."[95]
140. Later in the interrogation, the witness was asked about the fact that in the phone call he said that he had managed a team of waiters in the hall of defendant 1, the waiters were from the territories and the witness was sent by defendant 1 to deduct the checks and hand over the money to the waiters, and why he changed what he said to the interrogator, to which he replied with another evasive answer: "I don't remember I told you that", even though the phone call was only two days earlier[96] and without denying the correctness of the facts. Beyond the unfounded claim regarding their very statement.
141. An examination of the defense's summaries shows that although the accuser sought to give preference to what the witness said to the investigator and were documented in the said memoranda[97], there was no reference in the defense summaries to these memoranda other than a reference to the witness's answer in his testimony at trial that "it was years ago."[98] The refusal to refrain from addressing the weighty arguments of the accuser in her summaries will also be attributed to the duty of defense.
142. I will also note that the fact that the documents of the witness's authorized dealer are from 2018, while the checks that are the subject of the indictment were from 2017 do not contradict the claim that the witness deducted the checks in 2017, given that the witness gave the investigators documents belonging to those involved in his possession, and it is not impossible that the witness deducted additional checks from him besides those that are the subject of the indictment and gave documents at a later date to the checks that are the subject of the indictment.
143. The witness Padilla was not asked in this matter in relation to the Masarwa witness – in a manner that would be credited to the duty of defense.
144. His answer on a similar matter in relation to Defendant 3 also provides an answer to the question that arose in relation to the witness Masarwa, when he was asked by the defense why he gave the investigator acquaintance forms of Defendant 3's client from the years 2018 and 2019 that have nothing to do with "our story", and he answered: "Once again, everything is written in Nadir Abdelhai's card, all the material from opening a card, from the day he opened the card in the system until today. Everything appears, they pulled out all the material together."[99]
145. The same is true of the fact that among the documents provided by the witness Padilla there was no Know the Client form in relation to the witness Masarwa, which could stem from various reasons, including the fact that in that year there was still no obligation to do so. I will mention that Padilla was asked in relation to the Know the Client form for the check that Defendant 3 detailed in December 12/17, to which he replied: "The whole thing of getting to know the client and all of this started in '17, '18, so it could be that you know, you have to check.  If I have yes in the system, if I don't, then I shouldn't have filled[100] it out."  More than necessary, even if the witness Padilla suffered by not filling out a customer acquaintance form, to the extent that it was necessary to do so, this does not prove that Masarwa did not deduct checks from him.
146. I will mention that the witness Padilla was not asked anything about this matter in his cross-examination. This matter will be attributed to the duty of defense.
147. I determine that Masarwa worked at the relevant time in the banquet hall of defendant 1, received from defendant 1 checks of defendant 2 that were issued on the orders of Peleg Chai and signed with a stamp of guarantee and in the details of Flutzer, which he deducted from the city fad and distributed the consideration he received in cash to the waiters and employees in the hall in accordance with the instructions of defendant 1.
148. Prosecution witness Mordechai Flutzer
149. The witness Flutzer was brought to testify by the IPS.
150. Already at the beginning of the witness's testimony, it was clear that he was not interested in harming the defendants, when immediately after he was warned to tell the truth, he said, "I have something to say before me, I don't want to testify." It was made clear to the witness that giving testimony was not a choice but an obligation[101], but it was a clear sign of what was to come, which was not long in coming.
151. The witness was asked about his connection to Peleg Chai, said that he was in prison for his actions in that company, that he had issued invoices for it without receiving permission to use it, and that he had done so using computer software from his personal computer[102]. The witness identified the invoices that were the subject of the indictment bearing his signature and said that he "probably" issued them[103].
152. When asked to whom he issued the invoices, he said that he remembered that he had transferred them to a "certain office" in Tira[104], and when asked who wrote the invoices to, he replied, "It says earthworks company,"[105] in a way that was clearly trying to avoid providing incriminating details about the defendants. Only when asked what the company was called did he reply with conspicuous reluctance the name of Defendant 2, "Elhai Daoud Earthworks and Development."[106]
153. Even when asked if he had delivered these invoices to Elhai Daoud Earthworks and Development, he replied again in an attempt to reduce and avoid getting the defendants into trouble, "I took it to their credit, I brought it to a certain office in Tira,"[107] in an attempt to avoid saying that he delivered the invoices at the company's offices.
154. The witness was asked if he had carried out the work detailed in the invoices, he replied "I don't remember"[108] and later clarified in response to the question whether he did not remember that he had carried out the work or that he did not remember not doing the work, and he reiterated that he did not remember that he had carried out the work[109] in a way that did not arouse any confidence, when it was clear that the witness remembered the details well and was trying to manipulate his answers in a way that would not harm the defendants.
155. The witness was presented with an indictment in which he himself was charged with offenses in relation to Peleg Chai, according to which he issued 19 documents in the name of the company, 8 of which were presumed to be tax invoices for defendant 2 without making or undertaking to carry out the transactions in the invoices, and the defendant confirmed that he admitted to the facts of the indictment[110]. It was clarified that the defendant had confessed as part of a plea bargain after bridging the facts of the original indictment[111].  The witness confirmed that the invoices for which he was convicted in relation to defendant 2 are those of which the defendants are accused[112].
156. The witness was asked why he issued the invoices and replied, "Why did I issue them, I was asked to take them from someone and that is what I took out"[113] , when it was clear that the witness was making a considerable effort not to say the name of the person who asked him, in order not to offend the defendants, and especially not to mention the name of defendant 1, as it will later become clear that in his interrogation at the Tax Authority he said his name explicitly.
157. The witness was asked if there was anything beyond the issuance of the invoices and was referred to his statement during the interrogation. The witness read his answer and confirmed that he issued the invoices for a payment of 3% of each invoice[114].
158. When the witness was asked from whom he received the checks, Peter again gave an evasive answer, "I received it in the office", and when asked again from whom in the office, he replied "I don't remember, I think"[115], when again it was evident that the witness was calculating his answers in order to avoid incriminating Defendant 1.
159. The witness was asked again who gave him the checks, and he answered again, "In Daoud's office,"[116] while avoiding saying who was the person who gave him the checks.
160. The prosecutor refreshed the witness's memory from his statement and asked him what his answer was in s. 112, to which he replied, "The person who prepares the checks is the accountant there in the company"[117] – even though in his interrogation he said something else, that it was defendant 1 who prepared the checks for him[118]:

It was evident that the witness was making an effort not to say anything that would incriminate Defendant 1, so that even when he was asked to read out what he had said in the interrogation in response to the question, where he mentioned the name of Defendant 1, he tried to avoid repeating it in the courtroom.

161. He went on to say, "Despite what is written in section 112, it says that Daoud Abdel Hay, the owner of the company, used to prepare checks, whoever prepares checks in the company, then he was a bookkeeper, I wouldn't have received the checks from him. And last time it was also written who on his behalf or something like[119]"  The witness did not give any explanation, and certainly does not understand why, if the bookkeeper was the person who prepared the checks, in his interrogation he said that it was defendant 1 who prepared the checks.
162. Later, he was asked what he did with the money he received after detailing the checks while referring to what he said in the interrogation, to which he replied, "I returned the cash, it is written here to the owner of the company, but it was not for the owner of the company. Some, I would leave my share, and I would give, there were people who were connected to the matter, who received some of the money."[120]  Once again, the witness confirmed that in his interrogation he said that he returned the cash to defendant 1, but now changed his version, cleared defendant 1, without any explanation, and certainly does not understand, why he mentioned his name in the interrogation and now he refrained from doing so, and now he said that he gave the money – minus his share (the same 3% fee) – to unknown "people" whose names he did not name, also without any explanation.
163. I got the impression that all this conduct of the witness cried out a clear reluctance not to incriminate defendant 1.
164. The witness confirmed that he had deducted checks himself in Kfar Saba[121], but denied that he had deducted checks himself from Ayman Sultan, and said that he had not been with this moneychanger and that he did not know him. The witness did not know how a photocopy of his ID card and his Rav-Kav got to Sultan[122], said that he had never been to a money changer in Tira and noted that he had given a photocopy of his ID card to the bookkeeper when he handed over the invoices[123] , and later it became clear from the statements of Defendant 3 in his interrogation that he himself was in possession of Flutzer's ID card[124].
165. The witness said that his entire conduct was with the bookkeeper[125] and that he never sat down with the account with defendant 1, while calling him by his first name "Daoud" in a manner that is inconsistent with the attempt to distance defendant 1 from direct acquaintance and involvement between defendant 1 and the witness:

"It's as if I'd never sat down with Daoud on the account, only in front of the bookkeeper, as if the sums that were recorded and the accounting, the preparation of checks, the bookkeeper would prepare the accounts."[126]

166. When the witness was pointed out that what he was saying was not what he read from his interrogation, he tried to attribute it to his lack of concentration:

"I don't,  I don't know in terms of concentration how I was, because there is also a claim that from the beginning I was in contact with someone on behalf of Mr. Daoud, so here too my accounting, I gave a photocopy of my ID card to a bookkeeper, I didn't give it to Daoud, I was in front of a bookkeeper in this accounting.  Who told me the amounts, it's a bookkeeper, not Mr. Daoud."[127]

167. These words of the witness also did not arouse trust, and it is clear that he is doing his best to clear defendant 1 of what he said about him in his interrogation.
168. The allegation of "lack of concentration" in the interrogation is not reflected in the content of the statements as recorded by him and were not denied by him in his interrogation. Here are the quotes:
169. As we can see, defendant 1 was mentioned in the witness's interrogation, not incidentally, in a moment of lack of concentration. Defendant 1 was repeatedly mentioned as a living spirit, whose entire purpose of acquaintance with the witness was to deal with fictitious invoices.  Defendant 1 met the witness in his office, defendant 1 received the fictitious invoices from the witness, defendant 1 signed the witness with a guarantee stamp, defendant 1 received from the witness a photocopy of the witness's ID card along with the fictitious invoices, defendant 1 prepared the checks, and it was defendant 1 who told the witness exactly what to write on the invoices, including work and amounts.  The attempt to clear defendant 1 of involvement in the acts is a futile attempt that was clear from the beginning of the testimony that the witness had targeted him, and did not arouse any confidence.
170. He later confirmed that he had said these words and tried to explain them as follows:

"... That's also what I said in the questions before that.  But look, I was here for a few hours, so you don't always listen to everything and answer everything correctly.  I've never sat down with Daoud to settle accounts with him.  My accounting was always with the bookkeeper, he told me amounts and I spent according to the amounts, and I would bring the invoices to him, checks the bookkeeper would prepare.  That's all."[128]

171. This is an explanation that left the impression that it has no truth and it is clear that it was also given in order to protect defendant 1. This was an interrogation that lasted less than two hours[129], during which he repeatedly mentioned the name of defendant 1 as detailed above.
172. The witness was confronted with the fact that his interrogation began with open testimony and turned into an interrogation with a warning only after the witness was asked about his connection to Peleg Chai and said on his own initiative that he had no connection to it beyond the fact that he had used it for a certain period of time to issue invoices in its name, and then the witness "began to tell the story" without anyone putting words in his mouth. The witness confirmed and said that at the time he was in a rehabilitative treatment process and had a commitment to himself (the plaintiff reminded him that the commitment was also to the Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority), and he was in a process that lasted four years[130].
173. It emerged from the defense attorney's statements that he too was under the impression that the witness said this on his own initiative in the interrogation at the Tax Authority, when the investigator mentioned Peleg Chai and the defense attorney even asked the witness whether it was a spontaneous statement or whether the investigator knew even before the interrogation that the witness was going to tell about it, and was answered by the witness that it was spontaneous, he was summoned for questioning, asked about his connection to Peleg Chai and told me. There was no background call[131].  In response to the question, he added that the matter did not come up in the phone call in which he was summoned, and that if the investigator had not summoned him, he would not have given the words[132].  He later said in the cross-examination that when he was summoned for interrogation in 2023, he was not told what it was about, it was not something he had in his memory at that moment.  But when they started talking to him and asking him, he answered[133].
174. A perusal of statement P/42 indeed shows, as the witness said, that he spoke about the offenses he committed in connection with Peleg Chai on his own initiative, in a manner consistent with his statements about the rehabilitation process he was undergoing, while it is clear that he tried to be precise in the details and in the course of it he spoke about his personal circumstances at the time (when he first told about another person named Ben Lulu for whom the witness issued invoices of Peleg Chai):
175. This is a statement from which the signs of truth arise and emerge, including and especially in light of the witness's explanations when he gave it while he was in treatment, and it is clear that he asked to be cleansed and purified after explaining that he went to prison in 2018, was released in 2020, after which he was integrated into the therapeutic process in which he was in at the time the notice was delivered in 2023 and continued it until 2024[134]
176. After these words, the plaintiff raised with the witness the fact that he chose to tell on his own initiative and chose the answers he gave. The witness's answer on this matter did not inspire confidence when he said, "You don't always know, you don't always pay attention to every word, and sometimes you don't even know the answers.  Now when you read this, you see where you were accurate, where you were not accurate"[135], when as detailed above, the witness's words in his interrogation were clear and precise, while repeating over and over again the part of defendant 1 and his deep involvement in the commission of the offenses, when the witness clearly and clearly laid out the entire criminal plan to the investigator, without detracting from his part in the criminal activity at that time.
177. The witness denied knowing if Muhannad was arrested, after he was shown checks that had been deducted with him[136] (after he repeatedly said that he had never deducted checks in Tira), and later denied that he had signed the power of attorney given by Muhannad Nasser, said that it was not his signature while showing his signature elsewhere, said that the ID number in the power of attorney belonged to his wife, said that he did not know who "Pavel Zabaylov" was whose signature was confirmed[137], Just as he denied any connection to the power of attorney in his interrogation, where he himself referred to errors in the power of attorney:
178. The witness also confirmed that he did not deduct checks from Ihab Fadila in the city pad police station, and when asked what the purpose of signing the guarantee on the back of the checks was, he replied that it gave a certificate that he had received it[138]. These words of the witness, as well as the fact that he signed the checks, together with the fact that the checks were deducted in various places, some of which the defendant was not present, is a significant reinforcement of the witness's statement in his statement in the interrogation in which he said that he received the checks from defendant 1 in his office in Tira and signed them with a guarantee signature in his office.
179. The witness was asked how he knew what to write in the description of the work on the invoices and replied that the bookkeeper had given him details[139]. And when confronted with the fact that in his interrogation he said that it was Defendant 1 who gave him the instructions, he gave an answer that did not inspire confidence: "I also said in the previous question, that I was asked that my connection to the accounting and registration was with the bookkeeper.  Now from whom he would get what to write, how to write, I don't know.  That's what I got, I would sometimes get notes, sometimes[140] WhatsApps," and once again it was evident that the witness was doing his best to create a barrier between him and Defendant 1 and to retract clear things that he attributed to him in his interrogation.
180. The witness was asked about the actions that defendant 3 claimed to have carried out, to which he replied "I don't know who Nader is" and as for defendant 3's claim in his interrogation that the owner of the supplier Peleg Chai is a religious Jew, he has a compound in Glilot behind the refinery, he had a warehouse there with a black, religious beard and white tzitzit coming out of his pants, a large brown Chrysler car, which he was with the witness at a house in Bnei Brak on HaRav Kook Street, The witness replied: "It has nothing to do with me."[141]
181. Further to the above, the witness's statement was received during his interrogation after I found that there were substantially different answers from those given at[142]
182. The summary of the witness's main testimony was that he stood behind what he said in his interrogation at the Tax Authority P/42 – that he issued fictitious invoices of Peleg Chai to defendant 2 in exchange for a commission of 3%, without having any connection to Peleg Chai and without performing any work for it, except for one change, which was the futile attempt to create a barrier between him and defendant 1. In his interrogation, he denied everything he said in his interrogation in relation to Defendant 1 under various pretexts – lack of concentration, inaccuracy, etc., allegations that left a clearly unreliable impression, and it is clear that their entire purpose is to protect Defendant 1 – by replacing him with the "bookkeeper" whose name he never mentioned.
183. I do not trust this change in the witness's version and I prefer the clear, coherent things that the witness said on his own initiative in the interrogation at the Tax Authority, during the therapeutic process that he underwent.
184. I note that the witness's statements were also consistent with his confession and conviction of offenses in relation to the distribution of the fictitious invoices, for which he was sentenced to 18 months in prison and a fine of NIS 100,000[143].
185. In the cross-examination, it is clear that the witness is trying to please the defense attorney and give answers that are in line with what is expected of him, while trying to reconcile the matter with his main testimony.
186. The statement began with the defense attorney's question: "Were there people behind you? Share with us, it's important today for the case, are there people, because we claim that part of the work was done and you may have served as a mechanism within this thing, but I really want to know, there are people who stood behind you, and maybe you don't know what they did or do know what they did?[144]"
187. The witness replied: "Look, no one knew what I had done. I mean, it's as if both Daoud and the previous offenses that he had, they didn't know that it was a company that wasn't mine or something like that, no one knew about it."[145]

The witness, who was focused on the question of whether the person who received invoices from him knew about his connection to the company, inadvertently disclosed the involvement of defendant 1 when he said that defendant 1 did not know that the company (Peleg Chai) did not belong to the witness.

188. The defense attorney repeated the question of whether there was someone who stood with the witness in the matter of the billing, shared the profits with him, suggested that they take a commission, and added, "I tell you that there were those who manipulated you." Again, the witness unwittingly replied that he was incriminating defendant 1, contrary to his previous attempts to distance defendant 1 from committing the offenses, when he answered that there were people who knew him about the defendant whom the witness had not known before[146].
189. The defense attorney asked, "Who are these people? Why would they know you? Why would they come and turn to you and say, "It's very nice, come get to know Ben-Lulu, come get to know Daoud,

The witness, Mr. Flutzer:        Ben-Lulu has nothing to do with them.