Criminal Case 44241-08-23 State of Israel – Tax Authority, Central District Legal Unit – VAT v. Daoud Abdel Hai - part 6

The witness, Mr. D. Abdelhai:           If anything,

Adv. Solomon:           So you say if there isn't then there isn't If it is not, then it is not asked. He's not that,

Adv. Diment:    If you don't, then you didn't say that.

The witness, Mr. D. Abd Elhai:       So I wasn't asked Not that I said I wasn't asked,

Adv. Diment:    You asked who the supplier worked with, you said Nadir, you didn't say the bookkeeper, did you? You said Nadir, come and see where you said that the bookkeeper.

The witness, Mr. D. Abdelhai:           Mr. Judge,

The Honorable Judge Gabbay:           Mr. Sagi, Mr. Prosecutor, Sagi Dimant once again does not have to show him the notices and tell him, look here, where you said, you know that it was not said, tell him you didn't say it and ask him a question.

Adv. Diment:    So I'm telling you that nowhere in your messages did you refer an account manager you (unclear)

The witness, Mr. D. Abdelhai:         Because I wasn't asked.".

270. I got the impression that the defendant evaded providing a response after a review of his statements showed that he was given the opportunity to answer freely to the questions he was asked, including those relating to the track of confirming accounts and payment of funds, but the defendant did not raise any claim regarding the involvement of the accounts department in approving the payments. Adopting the defense attorney's "I was not asked" was the easiest way to evade a substantive response, and she, like the rest of the defendant's testimony, did not leave a credible impression.
271. The defendant evaded an answer to a substantive question regarding the whereabouts of a guarantee stamp stamped on the back of all the checks. The prosecutor presented the defendant with the statements of the witness Flutzer in his interrogation, according to which the defendant held the stamp of the guarantee that was found in his office, and that the defendant signed the check and wrote Plutzer's details in it, while defendant 3 said in his interrogation that the stamp belonged to the money changers and asked him for an answer to whom to believe.  The defendant's answer, "You will decide not me,"[265] did not arouse any confidence.
272. A person who is presented with a substantial claim that he kept a stamp in his office, in which the defendant signed the checks he gave to Flutzer with a personal guarantee stamp for checks issued in favor of Peleg Chai, is expected to say that this is a lie and that he does not have such a stamp. It was clear that the defendant was evading an answer to a question that meant a direct connection between the defendant and Flutzer, in contrast to the false representation that the defendant tried to present as if he did not know Flutzer.
273. I also did not believe the defendant's words regarding the explanation given regarding the check for a witness to Matar Bajat. With regard to this witness, I determined that he received from defendant 1 a check for NIS 10,000 which was issued in favor of the Peleg Chai company, signed with a guarantee stamp by the witness Plutzer, in exchange for his work in the hall of defendant 1, which he deducted at the city pad and received in cash.  This fact strengthens the thesis presented by the accuser that the checks issued in favor of Peleg Chai were not transferred to Plotzer or any other person connected to Peleg Chai, but were returned in one way or another to the defendants.
274. The defendant's answer on this matter did not give an explanation, and certainly does not satisfy the fact that Peleg Chai's check was deducted by Bahjat for a debt owed by defendant 1 to him from work in an event hall, when immediately after his lawyer said "but it is not in the card we showed it[266]", the defendant said "Yes, it is not in the card, there is a mistake in these checks".[267] The defendant went on to claim that the witness Bahjat is an electrical contractor who was issued checks that instead of being issued with the name of Bahjat[268], he mistakenly came out with the name of Peleg Chai, and added that if the court checks the card he will see that they are not on the cards[269], he asked them to bring the card[270], he reiterated that Matar Bahjat's check is not related to this file, it is just accidentally in the place where his name came out in the print came out on Peleg Chai and you can see that this check is not on the card[271],  He said that mistakes happen and the plaintiff has the paperwork and he can check it and he won't find that check[272].
275. However, these words of the defendant are not true.
276. In the ticket of the [273] city of Ihab Padilla, there is a check in which the beneficiary is the Peleg Chai company, which was deducted by Matar Bahjat, together with a photocopy of the specific check, as well as the testimony of Padilla, who testified that Bahjat deducted this check from him, whose testimony was not contradicted and it was not claimed that he made a mistake or lied in this matter or in general. Here is the relevant line in the city pad ticket:
277. And this is a photo of the check:
278. Insofar as the "notebook" was referring to the card of defendant 2[274], a perusal of it shows that its content and accuracy cannot be relied upon, check 5975 appears on the card of defendant 2, bearing the same date and amount, but its number is different - 5976, while the check number 5975 in the card bears a different date, 10.8.17, and a different amount, NIS 19,000:
279. In examining the checks produced by the bank in response to the order that was issued[275] , it was found that the bank had paid 29 checks issued by defendant 2 in favor of Peleg Chai, even though the card appears 31 checks that were allegedly issued in favor of Peleg Chai, it also emerged that the check for NIS 19,000 issued in favor of Peleg Chai on August 10, 2017 appears among these checks, but its number is 5974, and not 5975 as it appeared in the card of defendant 2. The following is his photo:
280. These worrying data with respect to irregularities in the card of defendant 2 were not investigated, did not come up in the hearings before me or in the summaries, and therefore will not be attributed to the defendants' obligation, but I cannot rely on the information from this card in favor of the defendants.
281. The defendant's answer in relation to the witness Samer Masrawa also did not inspire confidence. The defendant was presented with the version of the witness who testified in court that he did not work for the defendant, denied that he detailed 3 checks that came out of defendant 2 to Peleg Chai and were detailed in the city's Fad police station and that he did not know Peleg Chai or Plutzer, but also the fact that the interrogator documented a conversation with the witness Masarwa in which Masarwa said that he worked in a banquet hall of defendant 1.  He detailed the checks at the City Pad for the banquet hall of defendant 1 and the money he gave to the waiters[276].
282. The defendant's initial reaction to these words was, "What do I need him and why do I need to take a map and why, as if what is the connection to a banquet hall for earthworks," [277]even though the connection between the two things is clear and emerged from the statements of the witness Masarwa as documented by the interrogator – among the employees in the defendant's banquet hall were residents of the Occupied Territories. If the payment to these employees is in "black", a fictitious invoice allows money to be taken out of Defendant 2 in order to pay their wages.
283. The expectation is that those who make a claim against him that is not true will say it immediately – there has never been such a thing. The evasive answer of "why do I need it" is inconsistent with this expectation.
284. Only later did the defendant come to his senses and say, "But he told you he didn't know me, so why are you trying to put words in my mouth?"[278]
285. Here, too, the defendant was unable to utter the statement "there were never any things," but indirectly referred to the fact that was attributed, by reference to the witness's words, and not by direct reference.
286. The defendant's words regarding Flutzer's signature on the back of the checks also did not inspire confidence. The defendant was shown that he knew very well that there was no work behind the invoices, and because there was a stamp on the back of Flutzer, he could also give other people as a repayment so that they could take this money[279].  And again, instead of answering the substance of the matter, the defendant gave an evasive answer and presented himself as a victim: "I'm telling you that you're trying to make this whole case a horror movie and there's nothing in it and there's nothing in it, I don't know what you want from my life, as if at the end of the day, you're going to get a black stain on a white shirt, 10 years you haven't found an invoice in all my business, what are you looking for, what do you want from me?"[280].
287. Later, the plaintiff turned to the defendant to present the picture that emerges from all the checks deductions, when he reiterated that Plutzer had deducted 3 checks in Kfar Saba, Matar Bahjat had deducted 1 check, 3 checks had been deducted by Samer Masarwa and the rest had been deducted by defendant 3[281]. Here, too, the defendant gave an evasive answer when he said, "You asked the question and answered what I can say yes to you or not, I don't know what it means[282]," and continued by referring to what Plutzer said without referring to the argument on the merits of the matter[283].
288. In light of the evasive answer, I asked to give the defendant another chance to deal with the allegation: "Mr. Daoud, sir, I want to give you a chance to deal with the allegation, okay?... Listen for a moment, the prosecutor tells you, not one, three or four people, they detailed checks that came out of Abed Elhai Daoud to Peleg Chai, they detailed them in all kinds of places, and these people are all connected to you, the question is whether you have any reaction to this matter."[284]  In his reply, instead of referring to himself, to give a factual answer about his connection to people, to the matter and to his privatization, he gave another evasive answer detailing the claims of the witnesses who appeared in court: "My response that first of all Budget Meter has nothing to do with this whole story, what was written in his name is by mistake, my answer is that Samer came here and told him that I don't know Daoud Abdel Hai and I didn't take checks from Daoud Abdel Hai and I didn't list checks for Daoud Abdel Hai and he was a human being and in the end he came Flutzer said, "I came with a contractor and this contractor does have trucks and I won't remember his name and I won't tell you who he is because I'm afraid for my life and in the end now I don't know what all the answers he got two months ago are[285]."
289. This conduct of the defendant, which was also described above in relation to other questions on the agenda, did not arouse any confidence, and I got the impression that the defendant once again evaded providing a substantive answer.
290. The defendant's answer regarding the existence of a stamp in his office also did not inspire confidence. The plaintiff presented to the defendant that Flutzer said that the defendant had a stamp in the office, defendant 3 said that the stamp was with money changers, and in the plaintiff's opinion, the claim that the same stamp was with 4 different money changers is weak, and how does this reconcile with the claim that the defendant does not have such a stamp?  The defendant's answer, "I don't know if there isn't, why do I have to sign what I sign as if it's not because I don't have to have such a stamp"[286] is an evasive answer when I got the impression that the defendant, a smart, sophisticated and experienced man, fully understands the significance of the incriminating existence of the stamp in his office and its necessity.
291. The prosecutor explained to the defendant exactly why such a stamp was needed – in order to enable the transfer of the check so that others – Matar, Masarwa, Defendant 3 – could deduct it, and if the stamp is with the money changer, it is obligatory that Fultzer be there to sign the transfer. The defendant continued to evade when he answered, "Why do I have to have a signature, I'm not a money changer?"[287]
292. The prosecutor presented to the defendant that if Flutzer came to the balls, then there was no need for his signature as a guarantor, because he was present at the scene, and if he wanted he could break the check himself, or go to the bank and deposit the money. Again the defendant answered with an evasive answer that left an unreliable impression: "Sir, check me out, I have never spoken to a money changer and I don't even approve a conversation, whatever happens with money changers, I don't deal[288] with it."
293. The prosecutor presented the defendant that the only conclusion that can be drawn from the arrival of those people with the check when the guarantee stamp was already signed by Flutzer is that the same people received the checks from the defendant with the guarantor's stamp on the back. The defendant's answer did not leave a reliable impression.  In an attempt to fend off the obvious conclusion, the plaintiff presented the accumulation of facts said: "Sir, there is no way that I will make the case, there is no way I would make such a move, he would have come with a contractor, to the best of my recollection,  he should have brought him here, asked him about this contractor and knew who it was and start the case anew, he told you there is a contractor who had trucks and tractors, he would have come with me, he would have come (it is unclear) to the changemakers, who would have taken the money, I don't know.  I would have transferred the money to him and he would have taken it from here, who would have taken the money, after all, it is clear that this is the contractor who would have come with him, so why not bring the one who uses the invoices? After all, you have a contractor and you have the monkey, the monkey is Flutzer and the contractor, after all, the case becomes clear that there is a contractor in the middle that he executed and he took the money and Flutzer took the 3% percent of it instead of paying 17%[289]." that he did not know Flutzer[290] and confirmed that until now when he saw him at the court hearing, he did not know him[291].
294. I will mention that in his first interrogation, the defendant did not even know what Peleg Chai provided him,[292] nor with whom he operated in Peleg Chai[293]. In his second interrogation he also said that he did not know Flutzer[294], and in any case it is clear that there is no weight to the claim that "to the best of his memory" Flutzer would have come with the "contractor", which I have the impression was invented by the defense in order to try to justify receiving invoices and issuing checks, ostensibly in exchange for those invoices.
295. The plaintiff reiterated the claim that Flutzer's version that the stamp came from the defendant and not from the money changers is the truth because it cannot be that the stamp was with the money changers because there is no connection between Matar and Masarwa and Flutzer and all the money changers who detailed the checks have the same stamp, and on the other hand, only the defendant and his girlfriend, defendant 2, have a connection to all of them, and again he was answered with an evasive answer by the defendant, instead of referring to the logic of the matter and the only conclusion that is required of them: "I say as if you believe in the word of a serial crook for 30 years, but to a contractor who has been conducting business in Israel abroad for over 30 years, you don't believe it, so it's up to you, you decide whose taste it is, so why do you believe a person who is a serial crook and is in jail for invoices? And why don't you bring him and see who it is that he sold the invoices to?[295]
296. The plaintiff presented to the defendant that the company that benefits from the deduction of the invoices is the company he owns, defendant 2, by reducing its tax debt. To this, he replied evasively: "Mr. Judge, first of all, my company can't take two million shekels out of a turnover of 5 million shekels a month and withdraw them from the account because the next day it falls, after all, all my profits from this company are 5%, 7%, take it out of it, I can withdraw 70,000, 50,000, two million you withdrew from the company, the company withdraws these invoices almost two million shekels, and I'm telling you it's not.  You can't if you withdrew that money, I don't have a girlfriend the next day."[296]  Later on, the defendant repeated this claim over and over[297]
297. Contrary to the defendant's claim, the withdrawal of funds in one month is not attributed. A perusal of Peleg Chai's customer card with defendant 2[298] (with the limited weight that can be attributed to her in light of the irregularities detailed above), as well as a review of the invoices themselves[299] , along with their comparison with the checks issued by defendant 2 in favor of Peleg Chai[300], shows that contrary to the defendant's claim that the sum was withdrawn in one month, which would have led to the collapse of the company, the invoices are from 6/17[301], the first payment was made in 7/17 [302] and the last payment was made in 4/18[303] – that is, the withdrawals of the funds were spread over 9 months.
298. Later, the defendant said things whose logic is clear, but their application to the facts shows the exact opposite of what he said. The defendant said, "Mr. Judge, first of all, there is no one, these accounts started in January,  who thinks in January what will happen to him in December if he is in losses or profitability in order to take such an invoice, first of all such an invoice you have to take care of, if you have to cover it as if you are profitable in the 11th, 12th month, right? So you start with these accounts from 01/01, I am in losses, I haven't started the year yet?...  "But these invoices from 01/01/2017 started"...  "The year hasn't started yet."[304]
299. The logic is clear – bringing in invoices in a total amount of NIS 2 million at the beginning of the year when the economic situation is unclear is an action that makes no economic sense, and it is more logical to insert such invoices towards the end of the year depending on profitability.
300. However, as described above, contrary to the defendant's statements, the invoices are not from January 2017, but from the end of June 2017 until the end of November 2017, and just as the defendant himself described the question of feasibility in the face of the approaching end of the year, for the month of June 2017 an invoice of approximately NIS 330,000 including VAT, and for the month of July 2017 an invoice was issued in the amount of approximately NIS 250,000 including VAT. For the month of August 2017, invoices in the amount of approximately NIS 360,000 were issued, for the month of October 2017 an invoice was issued in the amount of approximately NIS 644,000, and for the month of November 2017 invoices in the amount of approximately NIS 450,000 were issued – in a manner consistent with the logic presented by the defendant himself of sums that are generally increasing towards the end of the year.
301. The plaintiff presented the defendant with the claim that the owners of Peleg Chai and Flutzer did not say that they had done any work and asked the defendant to comment on this matter. The defendant returned to the "additional person" thesis and replied that to the best of his recollection, Plotzer said that he came with another person who was asked by the defense what he was doing, and Plotzer replied that he was working in earthworks and refused to give his details[305], but he kept telling you that there was a missing link, that there was a contractor that he[306]
302. In addition to the statements regarding the existence of another person, which I rejected, in the same version as well, Plutzer said that the other person was also on the defendant's side, and it was expected that the defendant would disclose who was the mysterious contractor who carried out the work in the name of Peleg Chai, to which he had no connection, and without any business logic.
303. The defendant was asked about his claim that if he does business then there are delivery notes, and he was asked if the defendant submitted delivery notes related to this case. The defendant gave an evasive answer: "If there are permits, it means there are delivery certificates, there is no situation, sir, if there is a certificate from the field, then there is a certificate of approval, as[307] it were."
304. In practice, as will be detailed below, and although the defendant had opportunities to show very easily that work had been done, no evidence was presented that work had indeed been performed.
305. On the basis of the aforesaid, I determine that from the outset, the weight of defendant 1's testimony  in favor of the defense is low in light of the manner in which his principal interrogation was conducted, despite the warnings and warnings given to the defense.  To these must be added the impression of unreliable, evasive and sophisticated testimony, with contradictions between the defendant's version in his interrogations and what he said in his testimony, and the lack of explanations for the discrepancies as detailed above.  My conclusion is that the defendant's version is not trustworthy and cannot serve as a basis for determining findings of fact in his favor.
306. In her summaries, the accuser referred at length to many matters related to the testimony of defendant 1. I examined the defense summaries, which contained a one-sided summary of the defendant's testimony, without reference to the contradictions and difficulties that arose from his version, and I did not find any real reference in them, not even approximate the significant arguments that arose in the prosecution's summaries.
307. Testimony of Defendant 3 Nader Abdalhi
308. The defendant was asked about his role in the company and said that he was responsible for any doubt that entered the company. Elhai Daoud,"[308] and that he was in charge in the field in 2017 as well[309].  The defendant was asked about Peleg Chai and said that it was a guy who did work at 4 sites, a guy with a kippah with tzitzit, the defendant gave him the job and closed with him.  Every 15 days, the defendant would approve an account with Muhammad from the bookkeeping.
309. As will be detailed below, Muhammad was not brought to testify.
310. Peleg Chai is the guy with whom Defendant 3 sat who worked, and Plotzer was in Kfar Saba with a moneychanger, and the defendant was with them, and if they take the cameras of Kfar Saba, they will see that the defendant was with him, even though Plotzer says he doesn't know him[310].
311. The defense attorney presented that there was a dispute as to whether at the time of receipt of the checks, Flutzer sat with defendant 1 or with defendant 3. The defendant replied by way of example that they are now working on a large project in Sirkin and there are 14 contractors there, and defendant 1 does not know any of them.  The defendant said he was closed.  As soon as they make an account, the defendant confirms the bill and they go to the office and take it[311].
312. The defense attorney asked whether the work appearing in the invoices was actually carried out or not, and defendant 3 replied that it was 100%, but did not provide any information beyond that regarding those projects and the work that was performed[312].
313. The defense attorney presented the defendant that Plutzer mentioned during his interrogation that there was a guy who didn't want to give his details, Flutzer didn't know if there was a job or not, but he said that the guy came from this branch of trucks and asked for the defendant's attention. The defendant replied that the same guy Plutzer was talking about was the one who sat with the defendant, who closed the works, brought the equipment, brought the tractors, brought the trucks, did the work.  The defense attorney asked how the young man presented himself and said that the young man, who is religious, presented himself as a living faction.  He also said that they bring him paperwork and he sends it to the bookkeeper and they approve the contractor for him and he started working[313].
314. The defense attorney asked if Flutzer himself was with him, and the defendant replied that sometimes when they went to the Changers, Flutzer would come, and they presented themselves as accomplices[314].
315. Here, too, there was no reference to the fact that even according to Flutzer's version, the same "contractor" was on the part of Defendant 1, and how this is consistent with the claim that that person is suddenly Plutzer's partner.
316. The defense attorney presented the defendant with the fact that during his interrogation he had taken responsibility for the engagement, and the defendant replied that he had told the truth in the interrogation and only the truth and the whole truth. He said that he would go with the person to the exchanges, and in the exchanges they don't include checks from people they don't know, so he would give him 300 shekels and the defendant would bring him the money to the Ras Amer junction, he would be with him in the car and he would go with the defendant to the exchanges, and defendant 1 didn't know about it[315].
317. No explanation was given as to why, out of the hundreds of suppliers with whom the defendant was in contact, only with the supplier "Peleg Chai" did the defendant go to break out the checks of defendant 2 in the exchanges. The defendant did not claim that he did so with other suppliers, and in any case it is clear that no evidence of this was presented.
318. The defense attorney presented the defendant that there were money changers who said that they only saw the defendant and that the defendant had taken cash. To this, he replied that he had entered together with Peleg Chai[316].
319. The defense attorney presented the defendant with the fact that the defendant had said that these stamps were in the money exchanges, and the defendant replied that it was only in[317] the exchanges, without providing an explanation for the discrepancy between the fact that Plutzer signed with a guarantee stamp on all the checks, but Flutzer was not in all the changes, and how this fact is consistent with the claim that the stamps were in the exchanges.
320. The defense attorney referred to the prosecutor's question to his conclusion that if this stamp was in 4 changers then it was only from the defendants and asked for his comment. To this, the defendant replied that every change in the State of Israel has this stamp and he did not detail the check for you without this signature[318].  This argument was made in vain.  It is not within the scope of judicial knowledge that every exchange has such a stamp of guarantee, the defense did not present any evidence of this, and moreover, the defense refrained from asking the money changers who came to testify whether this stamp on the checks they deducted was their stamp or not.
321. Moreover, this reference to the stamp at the exchanges also does not provide an answer to the fact that if the stamp was found in the exchange, it would have required the presence of Flutzer at the change each of the times a check was deducted, and this alleged presence stands in contrast to the fact that the defendant himself also said that Flutzer came to the change only occasionally and was not present on all occasions[319]. The impression was that the defendant was lying in an unsuccessful attempt to protect defendant 1 and to give an explanation for the incriminating presence of the stamp with the details and signature of Flutzer on all the checks found in 4 different 2020 documents.
322. The defense attorney presented the defendant with saying in his interrogation that he had been with the religious person at the money changers' house in all the transactions, and the defendant confirmed that this was the case, and that he would have led the religious person to the intersection[320].
323. In cross-examination, the defendant was shown that during his interrogation at the Tax Authority, he did not remember how they started working with the supplier Peleg Chai. The defendant said that he had brought a medical document that he was taking medication and that it was not a disaster if he did not remember how they started working[321].  Even if it were possible to accept the argument that the defendant did not remember in 2023 how he started working with a supplier in 2017, this does not explain how suddenly, when he testifies in 2025, he does remember how he started working with the supplier.  This answer did not leave a reliable impression.
324. The prosecutor presented the defendant that during his interrogation the defendant did not even remember which contractor he was and which company he belonged to, and what he did for them. The defendant evaded an answer for a long time, and finally gave an answer, "No, but I remembered when he came to me, now I was invited to Petah Tikva, I go to every policeman or police invite, I went back 5 years, Peleg Chai says to me, I don't remember, I am in order to remember something like this, come and show me what worked, what worked, he started to show me, I told him yes, show me the invoices, why is it, I fill out the invoices, I fill out the website." This one will take out 40 beans from the website, give me 30 beans, I give him the arrangement, I summarized it after he showed me, I told him yes."[322]
325. Like other answers given, this is a vague answer that has nothing in it, and certainly not a satisfactory explanation. An examination of the defendant's statement to the police shows that when he was asked about Peleg Chai, he said that he remembered such a thing, but did not know how to say anything about it, and said that he thought he was a quarrying contractor, perhaps from Or Yehuda or Savyon[323].
326. Contrary to what he said in his testimony that after he saw the invoices he remembered[324], the defendant did not provide any answer in his interrogation to the sites where Peleg Chai went or to the work he performed.
327. The defendant was caught lying in his interrogation when he was asked how they paid Peleg Chai and replied that they did so with checks, and in response to the question to whom they gave the checks, he replied to the owner of the company. The person who brought the invoices received the checks.  Asked what happened with these checks, he replied, "How do I know?  I don't think they'll come back.  Peleg Chai took them,"[325] when during the trial it became clear that the defendant himself deducted a significant portion of the checks that were registered in favor of Peleg Chai and received them in cash.
328. The defendant's version evolved and changed according to the questions he was asked and the evidence presented to him.
329. After he was caught lying when he said that Peleg Chai took the checks and that he did not know what happened with them, he was shown photographs of checks that had been deducted from Muhannad Nasser and the power of attorney P/11 next to Muhannad Nasser's version that the defendant came to him alone, deducted the checks and received the money. The defendant immediately changed his version and said that he was with the religious person from a living party who paid him NIS 200-300 for the defendant to join him in correcting the checks[326].  The defendant confirmed that these were the things he said during the interrogation and that this was the truth[327].
330. When confronted with the discrepancy between the versions – the claim that the owner of the company took the checks and the defendant did not know what happened with them – in contrast to the later claim that the religious man had a living party who paid him NIS 200-300 to come with him to deduct checks and was asked what was correct – he gave a vague answer, which did not explain the discrepancy:
331. "I told you what's true, Peleg Chai is the religious, I'm not Smotrich (referring to Plutzer), that's not what you're talking about, Peleg Chai is the religious, I worked with him, he worked with me."[328]
332. The defendant confirmed the indemnity he received, saying that Plutzer, who is the authorized person in Peleg Chai, authorized the defendant to be his representative in all matters related to the company's affairs vis-à-vis the money changers for the purpose of deducting checks[329], but these words contradicted the defendant's statement in his interrogation that the person who gave him the power of attorney was the "religious Peleg Chai[330]", when later in his statement it emerged that they were two different people.
333. The defendant was asked about this matter in his testimony and it is clear that he understood the contradiction. In order to settle it, he gave another false answer when asked who signed the power of attorney and answered "he" in an attempt to evade a substantive answer.  When asked who "he" was, he replied, "The religious and the Plotzer together"[331] – this is when an examination of the power of attorney reveals that it was ostensibly delimited by one person – Flutzer, and not by Plotzer and the "religious."
334. Moreover, I will mention that Flutzer denied both in his interrogation and in court that he had signed the said power of attorney.
335. The defendant was confronted with Muhannad Nasser's version in his interrogation, [332] in which he said that the defendant had arrived alone, presented himself as an emissary of Peleg Chai, presented him with this power of attorney and received the money. The defendant replied, "No, he was with me"[333] and that he had never gone to a movie alone[334].  As we shall see below, this version of the defendant was also changed again, in accordance with the questions he was asked and the meanings he understood they might have.
336. Later on, the defendant was confronted with the words of Flutzer that he had never deducted checks in the city of Tira, that he was not familiar with the power of attorney, that it was not his signature, that the ID number on the power of attorney was not his own, but that of his wife, and even referred to the distinction between his signature on the back of the checks that he identified and the signature on the power of attorney, which is not identical. The defendant replied that Flutzer was also "religious."[335]
337. This version also stood in contrast to the versions given by the owners of the Nashafim. Muhannad Nasser said in his statement that the defendant arrived alone and presented himself as an emissary of Peleg Chai[336].  Even when the defense confirmed the thesis that defendant 3 arrived together with the owner of Peleg Chai[337] – it was one person, not two, as the defendant claimed.
338. The defendant was caught with another blatant lie when he was asked who Zabaylov Pavel was and initially replied that he did not remember who he was[338]. After it was shown to him that the power of attorney stated that he approved the signature of Pavel Zabailov, the defendant surprised him when he invented a new version according to which "Zabailov was with Mordechai (Plutzer)[339]," and went further when he claimed, "He brought me to detail the check, he was with me."[340]  Needless to say, until that moment the defendant had not mentioned the name of that Zabaylov in his testimony, and I was under the impression that the defendant had made up an acquaintance with Zabaylov and claimed that he was present at the scene in order to settle the claim that Zabaylov's name was mentioned in the power of attorney and in order to give him legitimacy.
339. The defendant confronted his statement during the interrogation that he did not know Flutzer, and replied that if Flutzer had not come (to testify) he would not have remembered him at all[341]. This is another lie, when an examination of the defendant's statement reveals that he was presented with Flutzer's ID card, and was told that this was the person who handed over Peleg Chai's invoices and signed as guarantor on the back of the checks, to which he replied, "This is not the person I was with.  It's not the same one.  The person in the picture is not the same person I was with.  The person I dealt with is first and foremost religious."[342]
340. The witness was confronted with Flutzer's claim that he did not give the defendant the power of attorney P/11, and the defendant insisted that Plutzer did give him the power of attorney[343], but this argument contradicted his claim in the interrogation that he received the power of attorney from the religious person Peleg Chai[344], who, as stated, is not at all Flutzer to the defendant's false and convoluted version.
341. The defendant was asked about his statement in the interrogation that the "religious" would have given him NIS 200-300 for the deduction and confirmed that this was the case[345], but this version contradicts the claim in the main testimony that the defendant gave the service in exchange for NIS 200-300 to Plutzer, who according to the defendant is not the religious person but someone else.
342. The defendant was asked why if the owner of the company came with the defendant physically to break out the check, why did he have to give you a power of attorney? The defendant gave a long and evasive answer in which he replied that he would go "with them" to the exchanges because they would commit robberies in the castle, and that he did so for NIS 200-300[346].  After this evasive answer, the defendant was again asked to answer the question:

"The Honorable Judge Gabbay:         The question was different, someone who came there with you, why should he give you a power of attorney as well, that was the question.