The witness, Mr. N. Abd Elhai: That's the Change's demands"[347].
- This is a claim that was first raised in the cross-examination, which had no basis, when Muhannad Nasser's statement explicitly stated that the indemnity was given to him by the defendant when he declared to him that he was an emissary of Peleg Chai[348]. The defendant was asked about this matter and replied, "Then ask the changemaker why he asked for it"[349] – and this is exactly what the defense would have been expected to do in the cross-examination of the money changers if it had sought to substantiate the claim that the demand for a power of attorney came from them, but it did not do so, and the aforesaid will be credited with its obligation.
- Moreover, if this were a demand of the Municipal Corporation, there should have been a copy of the power of attorney in all the Municipal Corporations, and this is not the case.
- We do not accept this argument and it is inconsistent with common sense and life experience that when the owner of the check comes to the NCP to deduct his own check, there is no need for him to also present a power of attorney in favor of a person who has just accompanied him.
- The defendant was confronted with the claim that he himself deducted the checks from Ihab Fadila, to which he replied "me and them" (i.e., Flutzer and "the religious"),[350] but these statements contradicted Fadila's testimony that the defendant was the one who deducted the checks and received the money[351], and confirmed that there could be the possibility raised by the defense attorney that the defendant came with "Peleg Chai"[352] – one person. At that stage, the defense did not even raise the possibility that these were two people who had come with the defendant to the padila, Flutzer and the "religious" one. Later, he changed his version and claimed that he was with the religious at Padilla[353]'s, omitting the presence of Flutzer.
- The defendant confirmed that he said in his interrogation that the guarantee stamp was stamped in[354] the NSC and that this is what is done in every NSF in the country[355], but this version cannot be reconciled with the fact that he insisted later in his testimony that Plutzer, who signed all the checks with the guarantee stamp (except for one who identified that it was not his signature), was not present in all the NSF – in a manner that supports Plutzer's version in the interrogation that he signed a stamp of guarantee in front of defendant 1 in his office.
- The defendant was confronted with his version in the interrogation that Flutzer signed the power of attorney, gave them the invoices and signed the checks as guarantor. To this, he gave another evasive, vague and meaningless answer that confused Flutzer with the "religious": "Not Flutzer, the religious, Flutzer is both."[356]
- The defendant was asked again regarding the power of attorney if the person who signed it was Flutzer and answered in the affirmative[357]. This version is an unexplained change from his version a few minutes earlier, according to which Flutzer and the religious signed the power of attorney[358].
- The defendant was asked who signed the back of the checks as a guarantor and replied, "I don't know, it's bookkeeping"[359] and reiterated that it was a matter of bookkeeping and not his own[360], but this answer also contradicted his version in the interrogation in which he said that the money changers signed the "religious person from a living party" to deduct the checks at the money changer[361].
- The defendant was asked who was with him at the money changers' house and replied that Fadila's religious was with him[362], Ayman Sultan had Flutzer and the religious with him together[363]. This answer contradicted what he said in the main testimony, according to which he entered into an exchange with Peleg Chai,[364] and it demonstrates the development of the defendant's convoluted version as his interrogation progressed during the testimony in an attempt to adapt the version to the evidence presented to him.
- Another blatant lie in this matter relates to the summary of the defendant's statements presented to him, in which he said that the stamp was not with them in the office but with the money changers, because Flutzer was not with him at Padilla's office in the city, and if so, how did Flutzer's signature arrive at the checks that were deducted at Padilla's, he replied, "I didn't understand you,"[365] even though I was under the impression that the defendant understood the question excellently and avoided giving an answer in the absence of the possibility that the combination of these facts could exist.
- I got the impression that this was a sophisticated witness, who showed proficiency in the secrets of the law, and used legal expressions at the very time he was being questioned by the prosecutor. Thus, for example, when asked a question regarding the attributed acts, he answered[366]:
"Adv. Diment: You worked with Flutzer to obtain false invoices from a company that did not provide you with any work in order to get Defendant 1 to evade or use the payment of tax that the defendant owes, what do you have to say about that?
- The witness, Mr. N. Abd Elhai: I thought you were summing up, ask a question".
- This conduct is far from consistent with the defense's attempt to portray defendant 3 as a simple person, one who does not edit documents and is based on representations made to him, with reference to his "subjective abilities".[367]
- As detailed above, the testimony of defendant 3 left an unreliable impression. The defendant was caught with many lies, his version changed during the testimony according to the evidence presented to him, contradicted his version during the interrogation, and his answers were vague and ambiguous. I do not trust his words and I have found that his version is not worthy of serving as a basis for determining a factual finding in his favor.
- In the case of this defendant as well, the accuser referred extensively in her summaries to many matters related to his testimony, I examined the summaries of the defense, which also in the case of this defendant also 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 in approximation to the significant arguments that arose in the prosecution's summaries.
- The defense's failure to provide evidence to support the claim that legitimate work was performed.
- As detailed above, the evidence presented by the accuser shifted the tactical burden to the defendants to show that legitimate work had indeed been performed.
- The defendants did not meet this burden even approximately.
- As detailed above with respect to the defendants themselves, I do not trust their words, and their versions do not in themselves bear this burden. Apart from these, nothing was presented, not even any evidence regarding the legitimate action of defendant 2 – not the testimony of a professional, not an annual report and not any other document.
- LIFE EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT PERFORMING LEGITIMATE WORK IN THE FIELD OF CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPMENT AND EARTHWORKS, LEAVES BEHIND A LONG TRAIL OF DOCUMENTATION THAT SUPPORTS THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE WORK - CONTRACTS, DELIVERY NOTES, CALL OUTPUTS, E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE, SMS AND WHATSAPP CORRESPONDENCE, PHOTOS FROM THE FIELD AND MORE.
- The defense did not present the slightest trace of any work that was performed.
- P/3 is an invoice dated June 30, 2017 in the sum of NIS 330,876, which was allegedly issued for 47 Bnei Brak-um al-Fahm sand pull trailer trucks, 64 Bnei Brak-Tira sand pull trailer trucks, and 21 Bnei Brak-Kafr Qasim sand pull trailer trucks, all in the months of 5-6/17.
Shipping more than 100 trucks requires the existence of delivery notes or invoices for the purchase of sand in bulk, messages, phone calls for coordination, invoices for the purchase of sand, etc. None of these were presented as evidence of defense.
- P/4 is an invoice dated July 30, 2017 in the sum of NIS 248,274 allegedly incurred for 773(!) full-trailer transports Herzliya Central Bus Station, 12 trailers for waste disposal at Herzliya Central Station, 16 trailers for Herzliya Central Bus Truck.
As detailed above, the delivery of no less than 800 trucks requires a very long trail of paperwork, starting with the very existence of a large project at the central bus station in Herzliya in which the defendants were involved, continuing with documents related to the landfill of waste that is required by landfill permits, etc., continuing with the logistics involved in many such transports – phone calls, drivers' names, truck numbers, messages – none of these were presented.