"On line 170, when he slams you that these invoices are not good , do you suggest that he contact Nader to answer why it happened?"[221].
"Well, he slams you that the person who listed the checks and received the cash into his hands is telling you that the investigator is Nadir Abdel Hay, your employee, and you hear this question and you want to turn to Nadir on this matter, what can you say about it today in court, about this situation where they say that Nadir took the money? First of all, if you, what is your attitude to this matter, is it correct in your opinion, what do you think is wrong with it, what do you feel about it?"[222]
- As I noted in the course of the testimony, this manner of testimony of defendant 1 impairs the weight of the version insofar as it can be used in his favor and greatly reduces its weight, when it is clear that the distinction made in the main testimony between the questions at the beginning were open-ended questions as detailed above, and the questions that were asked in relation to the acts that are the subject of the indictment.
- It is not superfluous to note that the defense's statement that an explanation will be given in its summaries as to why this method of investigation was taken remains orphaned, and it does not refer to the main interrogation that guides it to a great extent, as detailed above.
- In the framework of that guiding interrogation, the defendant said that those in charge of the invoices in the office were Aisha, the bookkeeper and accountant Muhammad Hasakia, and that the same people were in the office today in this position[223], he said that the people in the field bring in the subcontractors[224], and said that work managers are allowed to sign contracts with subcontractors. Whoever sends a stamp to the office in the office and whoever is in the field gives it to him in the field[225], said that he is not familiar with 99% of his suppliers, only if they are from a fire he knows them, he has no access to them, this access is on the website itself or through defendant 3 or his brother you were[226] and regarding Peleg Chai he offered to check if one of the people in charge in the field if it came through him, defendant 3 and gave his phone[227] and when asked why he contacted defendant 3 he said it was because he was responsible[228] and the same was the case when he came up in the interrogation That the invoices were not good when he referred to defendant 3 because he had brought the person[229]. He was asked about the witness Flutzer and about issuing checks and sitting with suppliers, and he replied that it is the same to this day - they approve accounts from the field, they transfer it to a bookkeeper and then to an accountant, and after that defendant 1 signs the check[230]. Defendant 1 said that he did not know the owners of Peleg Chai, Haim Peleg, or the witness Flutzer and had not met them in life[231]. When he was shown that the witness Flutzer said that he had had coffee once with Defendant 1 when they met, he replied that if he (Flutzer) was in the office at the accountant's office to take a check and Defendant 1 had to give him the signature, then he wouldn't give him a cup of coffee? But he doesn't remember it from that coffee and has no idea who it is[232]. The defendant denied that the money had returned to him[233]. Defendant 3 confirmed in his interrogation that Defendant 3 was engaged in procurement, shopping, subcontractors and was responsible for them, and said that Defendant 3 or his brother was or a person named Raed (apparently referring to his brother-in-law, whom he mentioned earlier without naming him), and that Defendant 3 still does so to this day[234]. He said that he did not know that Defendant 3 went with a doubt to the Police Station in Tira Tamarot for 200-300 shekels, and that if he had known, he would not have let him do it and gave him the money himself[235], and that after the affair became clear, he and Defendant 3, who are childhood friends, broke up and quarreled for six months because Defendant 1 did not respect the behavior of Defendant 3, and after that Defendant 3 [236] The defendant was asked about Flutzer and the other person who was with him and he replied that it verifies that there was work and Flutzer came with a person who does deserve the money and he is the one who made this bluff, and when asked what they check, he said that they bring all the paperwork, deduction at source, authorized signature and all the things, and whoever checks it is the accountant[237]. He said that he first learned that Plutzer had stolen the identity of Peleg Chai only during the first interrogation, and told the investigator that he would check himself and get back to him with answers[238].
- It should be noted that despite these statements of the defendant, he did not return with an answer, and did not present any document.
- The defendant said about the payment to Flutzer that it is possible that the bookkeeper took a report from the field, he can call the field, tell them that a person has arrived with an account and what to pay him, and then they send the quantities and delivery notes to the bookkeeper in order to check what to approve and what not to approve[239]
- The defense was expected to present the same delivery notes, but it did not.
- The defendant said that his turnover is NIS 120-130 million a year, and this is not something that will do anything to him, these 2 invoices of NIS 30,000 or NIS 40,000 and he is not looking for adventures for NIS 30,000[240]
- The reality is far from the picture that the defendant tried to present, when it was a matter of invoices in the amount of NIS 2,000,000, on which the appellant alone taxes NIS 300,000, very far from the NIS 30,000 to which the defendant referred.
- In cross-examination, he confirmed that in his first interrogation he did not remember what work Peleg Chai had done for him[241], as he said that there was definitely an agreement with Peleg Chai[242]. He later corrected and said, "I didn't say for sure, I said check the file to see if there is an agreement," [243]and added, "No, I said check the file to see if there is an agreement and here you will go to 120, it is written there to check the file if there is an agreement,"[244] and later he said, "But I told you maybe there is an agreement, maybe there is no agreement, I don't know if there is an agreement in the file."[245]
- However, an examination of the defendant's statement P/19 shows that the defendant did not tell the truth. A perusal of the statement shows that the defendant never raised the possibility that there might not be an agreement, but rather spoke about his whereabouts and its contents:
- At first, he was asked what Peleg Chai provided him with and during what period, and he replied, "Maybe 17-18. We have to look at the agreement."[246] Later, he was asked who he actually worked with at Peleg Chai and answered in front of the signatory[247]. Later he was asked if there was an agreement and replied that there was definitely an agreement and that to the best of his memory it was a building[248] He was asked to bring the agreement and replied that it was with the investigator in the files[249]. The interrogator said that the agreement was not with him. The defendant asked to call the CPA. Talk to the bookkeeper, Aisha to find the accountant who will return to the investigator because he did not answer[250].
- The same is true of the defendant's words in his testimony when he said that in line 125 of his statement, "I do not remember through my people regarding the agreement, I undertake to try to find an agreement if there is an agreement"[251], but here too the defendant did not say the truth because a review of the same line in the statement revealed that regarding the agreement he undertakes to try to find it and bring it as soon as possible, today or tomorrow, if it is in his office and he does not go around in VAT cases [252] - he never said that maybe there is no agreement. And contrary to what he told the investigator that he would get back to him with answers, he never returned to the interrogator, did not invent the agreement or any other document supporting the claim of real transactions.
- The defendant was asked from whom he had physically received Peleg Chai's invoices and replied that he did not remember, he had to see who was in the contract and through which foreman he came[253]. In other words, contrary to what the defendant said in his testimony, in which he claimed that most of the agreements in his field were gentlemanly and that only a third of the suppliers signed the amount, in his interrogation with the Tax Authority he did not raise this claim at all, and specifically in relation to Peleg Chai, the starting point was that an agreement had been signed with him, and the question was not whether it had been signed, but only where a copy of it could be obtained. Following the same interrogation on 12 May 2020, Investigator Trabelsi contacted Defendant 1 on 14 May 2020 and asked to receive the details and Defendant 1 that Defendant 3 be released from the hospital and bring the agreement and the details of the contact person[254].
- Needless to say, the "game" between defendants 1 and 3 regarding the place of the agreement and bringing a copy of it appears on the face of it to be an attempt to evade presenting what is not. Insofar as there is an agreement, it must be in the supplier's folder at the company's offices with the bookkeeper and the accountant, not in the hands of the foreman two or three years after the engagement and the alleged execution of the work.
- The defendant was asked about his acquaintance with Flutzer and meetings with Flutzer in his office, repeated the claim that he did not know Flutzer and gave evasive answers [255] until the court asked the defendant to focus on the discrepancy between Flutzer's version that he said he was with the defendant in the office while the defendant said he did not know Flutzer. The defendant gave an answer that did not inspire confidence: "What meetings, what meetings," and again repeated the claim that if Plutzer came to the accountant to take a check and the accountant went to the defendant to sign the check, wouldn't he give him a cup of coffee?[256]. In an attempt to reconcile Flutzer's claim of meetings in the defendant's office, and the defendant's claim that he did not know Flutzer, the defendant tried to reconcile the claim that Plutzer might have entered him for a moment to take a cup of coffee together with the accountant when he should have signed a check for him.
- This argument does not address the gap between the versions, and it left the impression of an attempt to evade answering this gap.
- This was also the case when the defendant was asked about the "additional person" in the Plotzer version in court, he said that he was also on behalf of defendant 1, and instead of addressing the question that was asked, he answered a different matter in a way that the court asked if he was interested in addressing the question, even then he continued to evade providing an answer about that other person[257], and again repeated the mantra he had already memorized in his main testimony that when the accountant came in to sign him on a check of a person who came to take it from the office, he respected him In the café[258].
- As I noted above, this is an answer that did not respond to Plutzer's testimony about meetings – in public – with the defendant, when in his testimony in court he added that another person was present in these meetings who was on behalf of the defendant, and the defendant refrained from answering the existence of that person, meetings with him and what his identity was, to the extent that he was such a person.
- The impression obtained was that the defendant deliberately refrained from providing a response after it was clear that the acquaintance between him and Flutzer was deep and significant and he was unable to provide a real response to these allegations.
- Later on, too, he evaded answering another question regarding Flutzer's claim [259] and refused to address the question addressed to him by the plaintiff[260] regarding the feasibility of the transaction for Flutzer, after he claimed in the initial interrogation that it was a matter of no feasibility[261].
- The defendant also evaded when the plaintiff presented him that contrary to his claim in the main interrogation that suppliers were sitting with the bookkeeper[262], there was no mention of this claim in his statements to the Tax Authority[263], and he continued to evade until he repeated what he had heard in his defense attorney's remark during the cross-examination[264]:
"Adv. Diment: So I'm telling you that nowhere here in the messages,