Criminal Case 44241-08-23 State of Israel – Tax Authority, Central District Legal Unit – VAT v. Daoud Abdel Hai - part 4

Adv. Solomon:           So what?

The witness, Mr. Flutzer:        No, Ben-Lulu I really worked with him.

Adv. Solomon:           What did you work with Ben-Lulu?

The witness, Mr. Flutzer:        I built things up with him."[147].

190. From these things it is clear that unlike Ben Lulu (in respect of whom the witness explained that there was also legitimate work apart from fictitious invoices[148]), in the case of defendant 1 there was no legitimate work , and thus he confirmed what he said in his statement P/42 that the entire purpose of getting to know defendant 1 was for the purpose of trading fictitious invoices[149].
191. The witness repeated what he had said earlier, according to which defendant 1 did not know that the company (Peleg Chai) did not belong to the witness, and confirmed the defense attorney's statement that the witness represented himself as the manager of the company[150], as he did at the police station in Kfar Saba[151], and that the defendant did not know about his past[152]. The witness said that he had done this in the past with other parties who had received invoices from Peleg Chai and he did not do anything (i.e., he did not perform work in return) and he was tried for it[153] , to the best of his memory, it was in 2009-2010 in an income tax file, and not VAT[154].
192. In the cross-examination, the defense's argument was presented to the witness:
193. "Q.        Now we will concentrate mainly on the matters, which were also raised by my colleague, this is what Shabbat answered in the main investigation.  In our defense, we claimed that Daoud himself did not meet with you anyway.  He didn't talk to you, there were people acting on his behalf who worked with you on the issue of the engagement, the issue of checks, the issue of everything.  This is what they claimed.  And you confirmed in your main interrogation that you did indeed not act with Daoud himself[155].
194. This argument was consistent with the witness's defensive version of the main interrogation, in which wherever the witness spoke in his interrogation at the Tax Authority about the involvement of defendant 1, he instead said "the bookkeeper". To this the witness replied in the affirmative and said that the entire conduct was with the "bookkeeper", again without mentioning his name or any identifying details about him[156], even though later it was clarified that defendant 2 does not have an bookkeeper at all, but rather an accountant and[157] an accountant.
195. Later on, the witness was shown that all the NIS that the witness had accompanied Defendant 3, and that Defendant 3 had received NIS 300 for listing the checks with the witness, and all of them said that the witness had been present at these LAPs. The witness repeated what he said in the initial interrogation, that he had been in the police station in Kfar Saba and had not been in the police station in Tira and that he did not know them[158].  I will mention that the witness said earlier in the main interrogation that he did not know who Nader was.  The defense did not address these things at this stage, how can the witness even go to detail checks in various places in the castle with Nader, whom he does not know at all.
196. The defense made no attempt to refresh the witness's memory, to introduce him to Nader, defendant 3, who is sitting in the courtroom, and to show the witness how he does not remember going with him many times to the police station in the castle and not to remember him. The aforesaid will be attributed to the duty of defense.
197. Moreover , the defense's argument that Witness Flutzer accompanied Defendant 3 to all of the parties in the castle also stands in contrast to Defendant 3's version that Flutzer accompanied him only on some occasions, as will be detailed below.
198. The defense dwelled on the witness's statement in his statement P/42, where he said, "I gave the invoices to the owner of the company or to anyone on his behalf I don't remember" and he was asked and confirmed that he had no information that it was Daoud or Nader or anything like that[159], without asking the witness in relation to the variety of statements recorded above at a later stage in that statement regarding Daoud's connection to the offenses and the entire criminal plan that the witness laid out in his statement P/42 regarding the conduct between defendant 1 and him - acquaintance with fictitious invoices, a meeting in the office of defendant 1, receipt of the fictitious invoices from the witness, the witness's signature with a guarantee stamp, the receipt of a photocopy of the witness's ID card together with the fictitious invoices, Preparing the checks, instructing the witness exactly what to write on the invoices, including work and amounts.  This matter will be attributed to the duty of defense.
199. At this stage of the cross-examination, the witness was asked[160]:

Q.:       You say that you didn't get money for doing the work either, because you didn't do it.  And I ask you to think carefully and answer me, was there anyone who was with you again this time and did the work? I'm telling you that this figure I'm telling you is not made up".

1. Let me tell you something. I didn't do any work, I did issue the invoices. If there was someone else, there was someone else who introduced me to Daoud."
2. These words of the witness were consistent with the witness's statements already in his interrogation at the Tax Authority, in which he said that there was someone who knew him and Defendant 1[161], but in the same statement he also asked to be precise and said that "I was introduced to him precisely because he issued him fictitious tax invoices. There was no "courtship" between us.  We met solely for the sake of this matter"[162] – things that he refrained from repeating in his testimony in court in an attempt to defend Defendant 1.
3. From then on, the defense focused on questions intended to extract from the witness statements that were consistent with the line of defense that had already been declared to the witness as detailed above – the absence of a direct connection between the witness and defendant 1 and the possibility that work was done for which the invoices were issued.
4. The witness, whom I got the impression that he was willing to go to great lengths to assist the defense and rescue Defendant 1 after incriminating him in his interrogation, happily replied and confirmed what had been presented to him.
5. Thus, he confirmed that it was possible that the same person (the one who knew him and Defendant 1) had done work[163], even though the witness's interrogation at the Tax Authority revealed that that person made the acquaintance only in order for the witness to issue fictitious invoices to Defendant 1[164], and that Defendant 1 told the witness exactly what to write in the invoices, including the works and the amounts[165]. This matter did not come up in the cross-examination and will be attributed to the duty of the defense, and in any case no business logic was presented in bringing a person – the witness – to issue fictitious invoices so that another could perform the work detailed in those invoices.
6. As part of the attempt to appease the defense, the witness did not deny that the same witness went to the police station in Tira and identified himself by name, after the witness said that he was not in the police station in the castle[166] - a claim that was raised by the defense as a possibility only during the witness's testimony, and is inconsistent with other testimonies that the defense tried to build from, of the owners of the shelters in the castle, that the witness was with them and deducted the checks of defendant 2. and not any other person, and contrary to the question posed to the witness a short time earlier, according to which all the people in the castle said that the witness accompanied defendant 3[167].
7. The defense attorney presented to the witness[168]:
8. Okay. I'm telling you that the man was with you at any given moment, at all these times, he was a man who did the work just like they were on the invoices. I tell you this unequivocally as a fact.
9. Okay, this is a guy I know from the industry.  From the industry.  Beyond that, what he did, what he didn't do, I don't know.
10. Despite the "unequivocal claim as a fact", no evidence was brought regarding that unknown person, and no evidence of the work performed by him was presented. The aforesaid will be attributed to the duty of defense.
11. Later, the defense attorney tried again to say that he was a well-known person in the field[169]:

"He had this man, he was busy, you know, at least from the acquaintance, he had trucks, he did other projects, he worked on these construction jobs? I'm telling you yes."

208. Here, too, despite the talk about that known person, who carried out projects, etc., no identifying details were brought about him, not even his name was mentioned by the defense or any of the defendants in their testimony. The aforesaid will be attributed to the duty of defense.
209. The defense reached the height of absurdity when it was claimed that the same "person" was performing the work simultaneously as soon as the witness issued an invoice[170], to which the witness replied that he had nothing to do with it[171], in such a way that even after attempts to get the witness to say that the invoices he issued were in favor of work performed by another, the witness did not confirm it at that stage.
210. 00Later on, the witness walked the fine line between a desire to remain faithful to what he said in the main testimony and a desire to please the defense in order to minimize the damage to defendant 1, when asked if the same "person" took him back up and said "there is a situation, it's his business"[172], he was asked if that person was with him in Abdelhi's offices and took the checks with them, to which he replied that the same person was in the offices. He brought the witness there, but did not confirm that the man had taken the checks[173].  It was presented to him that he could not rule out under any circumstances that this work was done, that everything that was written in the invoices given by the witness as cover, this work was done, to which he replied that he could not rule out anything, he personally did not do it[174].  The witness was asked if he presented himself as the owner of a company that could carry out work and replied that he presented himself as the owner of Peleg Chai and issued invoices that checked that everything was fine and that what was done beyond that had nothing to do with him[175].  The witness refused to confirm that he had been in all of the other person's meetings at 'Abdelhi and said he could not know[176].
211. 0The witness confirmed what he had already said in the main interrogation, when he retracted what he had said in his interrogation at the Tax Authority P/42 in relation to defendant 1, according to which the witness never returned money to defendant 1[177], that defendant 1 never gave the witness a check in hand[178].
212. The defense attorney asked the witness for an explanation so that the court would know that what the witness said in court was the truth, and the witness replied, "No, I also said that in the main testimony. There is an owner of Abd al-Hai Daoud in the question."[179]  This is an answer that is inconsistent with a perusal of the witness's statement P/42, which shows that defendant 1 was never mentioned by the investigator who only asked about invoices of Peleg Chai to defendant 2.  The witness himself, on his own initiative, told the entire story of the criminal plans that were hatched with Defendant 1, by whose name he explicitly mentioned and mentioned him many times as detailed above.
213. I got the impression that this answer of the witness was given in order to minimize the damage to defendant 1 and to try to clear him of the incrimination of what he said in his interrogation P/42.
214. In an attempt to appease the defense, the witness went so far as to confirm the baseless claim, which first arose in his cross-examination, that it was the anonymous person who gave the witness the cash from the check deduction[180], despite the fact that in his main testimony he spoke only of himself as the one who received the deduction money.
215. How unfounded the claim is attested to by the fact that the defendants never raised this claim in their reply to the indictment, in the statements collected from them by the Tax Authority and in their testimony in court. Defendant 3, who claimed that he went with the witness to the deduction money in Tira, did not raise an argument that there was another person who received the deduction money and gave his share to Nader and his share to the witness (as will be detailed below, defendant 3 said in his testimony that in some cases he went to the deduction money with the "religious" and in some cases with the witness and the "religious", but he did not say anything consistent with the aforesaid thesis regarding the manner in which the deduction money was transferred to the witness).
216. The witness was also correct in saying that "it could have been" that the unknown person took the power of attorney P/11 from the witness and filled it out and signed it with the identity card of the witness's wife, and he always gave his identity card to that person[181].
217. On the aforementioned side, the witness said that the same person was also on behalf of defendant 1, because he brought him there, was with him in all the meetings[182].
218. This means that the same person, whose name the witness refused to give his name, is also known to Defendant 1. As detailed above, the defense argued that this is a well-known person who is active in the field and owns trucks.  It was expected that Defendant 1 would name him and bring him to testify in order to corroborate the many claims that arose in the interrogation of Witness Flutzer in this context.  He did not do so, and it will be credited to him.
219. The witness was asked about his acquaintance with Defendant 1 and said that he knew him because he was there (i.e., a familiar person) and that they had sat together in a friendly meeting with him in his office. The entire conduct was with the bookkeeper, and there were no negotiations with defendant 1 about work[183].
220. The defense refrained from questioning the witness about basic details about the anonymous "bookkeeper" with whom the witness dealt for a long time, including in notes and WhatsApp messages[184] – his name, what he looked like, what his phone number was. The aforesaid will be attributed to the duty of defense.
221. The defense refrained from interrogating the witness about the explicit things he said in his interrogation – that the entire purpose of the acquaintance between him and defendant 1 was for the purpose of transferring fictitious invoices. This avoidance will also be attributed to her obligation.
222. The summaries of the prosecution in the case of the witness Flutzer were detailed and included reference to many points that arose during his testimony, which justify accepting the witness's version in his interrogation at the Tax Authority, which is also supported by other evidence, and giving preference to the witness's version in court, which was clearly given in an attempt to distance Defendant 1 from the criminal activity and to satisfy his defense attorney.
223. The summaries of the defense in the witness's case were full of pathos, but they were sparse in content, and included a reference to the witness's criminal past – about which there was no dispute – that he was not a repentant person but rather someone who reveals a handkerchief but covers a handkerchief, a reference to his sneaky sweetness as a manipulative witness. Almost no reference to the substance of the matter to the weighty allegations raised by the accuser in her summaries.
224. Thus, the defense referred to the fact that the witness replied at the beginning of his testimony that he did not remember whether he had done any work[185], without referring to the other things he said in his testimony as detailed above at length.
225. Among the few substantive references was the claim that the witness admitted that no one knew in real time about his takeover of Peleg Chai[186], without referring to the fact that regardless of the question of whether the witness presented himself in this way or not, the question under test is whether the invoices he provided to the defendants were for work performed or not, when it is not uncommon for various "monkeys" to be represented as owners of companies established in their name whose sole purpose was to distribute fictitious invoices.
226. Another reference was the claim regarding the other person whose details the witness refused to provide his details, who was not identified and was never interrogated, who supposedly attended meetings with him and received the actual money[187], without reference to the accuser's many claims in this matter, inter alia, the fact that the other person was a person who mediated between the witness and defendant 1, whose details were also supposed to be known by defendant 1, and despite this, his name or identity was not revealed and no attempt was made to present him to the witness.
227. It was further argued that the other person served as a cover platform that appeared in real time as legitimate and acceptable for the work he actually performed for the defendant[188] – when no business logic was presented in this conduct, and without dealing with the fact that in the examination of the witness at the Tax Authority P/42 he explicitly stated that the part of the person he knew between him and defendant 1 was limited to that acquaintance and only for the purposes of providing fictitious invoices. Nothing more, and the statement that the person received money is an argument that the witness approved in order to please the defense so as not to harm defendant 1.
228. The defense argued in its summaries that the witness explicitly denied in his testimony any direct connection to defendant 1 and that he did not meet with him for the purposes of accounting, except with other parties, in particular bookkeeping[189], without any reference to the substance of the matter to the explicit statements he made at the Tax Authority regarding the fact that defendant 1 was the living spirit in the criminal plan, and without referring to the fact that there was no attempt to obtain details from the witness about the anonymous "bookkeeper" with whom he allegedly conducted. The unconvincing version change was intended to create the same buffer that would extricate defendant 1 from the clear incrimination in the witness's interrogation at the Tax Authority.
229. The defense also referred to the fact that the witness's testimony establishes the possibility of the involvement of other parties, as Defendant 3 referred in his testimonies in the accuser's offices. I will address this matter below in a review of the version of this defendant, and this argument is also far from reflecting the evidentiary reality in the case.
230. On the basis of the above, I prefer the witness's version in his interrogation at the Tax Authority to what he said in court.
231. Defendant 1 - Daoud Abdalhi
232. The defendant testified on December 25, 2025. His notices to the Tax Authority were submitted and marked P/14 of January 16, 2023 and P/17 of May 12, 2020.
233. The defendant said that he works in earthworks, has two banquet halls and a cowshed for raising calves. He said that he employs 80-100 workers from all over the country[190].  He said that he was the owner and director of defendant 2 and said that he owned 100% of the shares in all his companies[191].
234. The defendant said that defendant 3 was a childhood friend who manages the earthworks[192] field and that at the relevant time he served as a manager in charge of procurement, purchases, subcontractors and suppliers for defendant 2[193].
235. The defendant said that in working with most of the suppliers, the agreements are gentlemanly[194]. About a third come, check them, sign, "I need 10 trucks from you here, I need you to do work for me there."
236. An examination of the relevant invoices revealed that this was not a matter of momentary short-term conduct of "10 trucks". The invoices showed that Peleg Chai allegedly carried out hundreds of moves for defendant 2 for a large number of projects, and that it carried out significant additional work for defendant 2.  The expectation is that such work will leave behind a long trail of documents, but these were not presented as detailed below.
237. The defendant said that he had no connection to the subcontractors, that they were in contact with defendant 3 who passed the information to the defendant's brother and updated him on his agreements with that contractor[195]. I will preface by saying, as will be detailed below, that the expectation in this context is that the same brother, you, will come to give testimony in the Haganah affair to tell the story of his acquaintance with Peleg Chai, but this has not been done.
238. The defendant was asked about the process of payments to suppliers and said[196] that in every project there are delivery notes that are signed, the employees transfer the delivery notes to the clerk in the office, the clerk goes through them, confirms that the signature is approved, and then they call him – Defendant 3, your brother or brother-in-law (whose name he did not name)[197] – to come and sit on the bill and approve it. After the account is approved, this is worked for the accountant who sits in the room next to the office where the defendant (where the clerk and the accountant are sitting[198]), who issues a check and puts it in to the defendant who issues the check[199].  Here, too, and as will be detailed below, the expectation was that all the people and documents mentioned by the defendant would be brought in a defense case, but this was not done.
239. The defendant said that the suppliers themselves were not present with him at the time of signing the checks. He has over 300 suppliers and if it had been conducted this way he would not have time to work[200].
240. When the essential part of the defendant's testimony arrived, where it was possible to contradict what he said in his interrogations at the Tax Authority, his interrogation became an unparalleled guide, when instead of open questioning, the defendant was presented with what he said during the interrogation and the defendant was asked to respond to the answer given by the defendant himself:
241. "And then he asks you who issues the invoices in general and who is responsible for the bills, and you say that in the office there is Aisha as an accountant and of course my accountant Mahmoud Hezkiah, who are these people?"[201] ;" And then he asks you what you're doing and goes to the suppliers in line 9, he asks you who Vilna is, and you tell him, Vilna is a supplier who works with me, he asks what the scope of the transactions is, and you tell him, "Go check the cards, I don't remember all these things, I can't see, I can't tell you, and my people in the field bring my subcontractors, what do you have to say about this answer?"[202]; "They asked you who signs the contracts, and you said that my foremen are allowed to sign with them, and so is my entire office, what do you have to say about that?"[203]; "He asks you a very important question in line 29, what about the examination of the agreement, your approval, etc., and you give such an answer in line 30, 99% of my suppliers, I don't know, only if it's from Tira, so I know, I want you to explain about this thing, why you don't know what's going on, let's be accurate."[204]
242. This guiding primary interrogation continued even when the witness came to the facts related to Peleg Chai and communicated with him:
243. "And then he asks you in line 111 the same questions he asks about everyone, also about the Peleg company, and you answer him everything is the same with whom the agreement was signed, I remember if it was a building contractor, to the best of my recollection."[205]
244. At this stage, the prosecutor objected to the manner in which the defendant testified in the manner in which his testimony was read.
245. It was made clear to the defense many times that if it wishes to give any weight to the defendant's testimony, it must allow the defendant to testify freely:

"Tamir, there's a point, look at me for a moment, there's a point in the prosecutor's words in terms of the weight that will be given to the way things  are said when you read him his message right now in connection with talking about matters related to the indictment, he actually reads to him the things that were said, so it won't have the same weight as he tells himself, and then if you have any clarification, ask him, do whatever you want with it"[206]..."Sir, this is a very guiding interrogation"[207]..."My lord reads him line by line from the part Relevant What is he supposed to say now? Did you call him that he referred to Nadir yes and?"[208]..."I suggest that if you want some weight to be given to what the witness says, then let him tell himself  about his acquaintance with Peleg Chai, how he got there, etc."[209]..."I said that if you want some weight to be given to his testimony in court beyond what was said in the interrogation, then he should testify primarily in an open primary testimony, not in response to every line you read..." [210]"I commented to my lord that the way my master interrogates is an unparalleled guide"[211]..."I suggest to you, sir, please that if you think that Mr. Daoud can explain what happened, then please Mr. Daoud Abdel Hay, tell us if you want what happened between you and the company (talking together)[212]"..."Sir, don't you know how a primary and counter-investigation is conducted? Sir, you want  to read him word for word, to spoon everything that was said, to get the answer from him, and then this thing will be given weight, you don't want him to tell you what you would have done, do what you want."[213]

246. The defense insisted that this is a primary investigation in the most natural way possible[214] that it will argue in the summaries why it behaved this way[215], that it was agreed that the statement should be submitted in the interrogation and that it was only a matter of refreshing and going to the points in order to clarify them[216], it was said that the court's comment was not accepted and the investigation would continue in the way the defense thought it was appropriate[217], it was said that it was not a guide to read his answer to the witness and ask him what he thought of the answer[218].
247. Of course, this position presented by the defense is unacceptable and this is also known to the defense, which expressed a different position in the prosecution's case during the testimony of the witness Flutzer, when the defense objected to the way the prosecutor interrogated the witness when the defense said, "Sir, I want to comment for a moment, this method of interrogation that he still does not let him answer, after all, part of the matter is to see what he said in his interrogation, What does he say in testimony in court?  He doesn't allow him a second and he immediately runs to refresh his memory, posing the question for him.  It doesn't work that way, how an investigator asks is different from the rules you ask in court.  Let him answer, if you discover a contradiction after that, after he thinks and remembers that, then you move on to the stage of refreshment.  You don't push the refresh straight."[219]
248. Despite the warnings, the defense continued this course of investigation with substantive questions regarding the root of the charge and the defendant's role in the offenses:

"When he  goes through the Peleg company with you, you mentioned  that you have to check to know through which foreman he came and get the answers accordingly, and when you checked at the end you referred it to him in line 149, you told him let's try with one of the people in charge in the field, if it came through him in the name of Nadir Abdel Hai and you gave him the phone."[220]