Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 61890-12-21 State of Israel v. Ayala Sharach Cohen - part 2

On behalf of the accuser:

28. DA/1 - The Amended Indictment against Birnbaum (Criminal Case (Tel Aviv Economic) 61866-12-21).
29. D/2 - The verdict in Birnbaum's case from October 23, 2023.

On behalf of the defense:

30. D/3 - Feedback on the Defendant's work for 2023 on behalf of her employer, indicatesthat the Defendant receives impressive praise for her work, performs her duties to the satisfaction of her employer, achieves high achievements, advances and develops in the personal and professional aspects.
31. D/4 - Content written from the employer's website according to which the company conducts a criminal background check for its employees, including convictions in the financial field.
32. D/5 - A summary of the defendant's examinations dated November 19, 2023 and December 10, 2023, and additional medical documents that will not be specified for reasons of privacy.
33. DA/6 - Documents on behalf of the Probation Service, dated July 24, 2024, relating to the coordination of the Shalatz program and the defendant's suitability for the implementation of the program formulated for her, to which was attached a recommendation from the "Dor LaDor" organization, where the defendant volunteered to assist lonely elderly people and Holocaust survivors, in which it was noted that she was "a sensitive girl full of endless giving to others." and "she has a big heart and acts of kindness."
34. DA/7 - A medical document of the defendant dated January 3, 2024, which will also not be detailed for reasons of privacy.

Evidence of Punishment

35. Miriam Korach Cohen, the defendant's mother, spoke about the defendant's childhood in the shadow of complex life circumstances. In this case, she spoke about the financial distress that the family had faced over the years, and about the defendant's relationship with her father, who had recently passed away.  In addition, she spoke about the circumstances of her lifeand the loss of her two children, the defendant's brother and sister, in unfortunate circumstances, and among other things, about the fact that the defendant had recently separated from her partner in recent years.  According to her, today the defendant is working and has managed to pave a good way of life, despite the difficulties, and a conviction will tarnish her and harm her.  Her request is that I take into account the defendant and her efforts to rehabilitate and cancel her conviction.
36. Eli Shaul, the defendant's brother-in-law, married the defendant's sister and has known the defendant and her family well for about 26 years. According to him, he accompanied the defendant over the years and was exposed to the complexity of her life.  He also stated that he notices the degree of rehabilitation in the defendant and her closeness to family members, and fears that a conviction will lead to her deterioration.  His request is that I take into account her circumstances and cancel her conviction.

The accuser's arguments for punishment in summary

37. Counsel for the accuser referred to the facts of the indictment, and to the fact that the defendant was convicted of three offenses under Section 52D of the Securities Law. According to them, in committing the offenses, the defendant severely harmed the important social values protected by the offense, which relate to maintaining the fairness of the capital market and its image in the eyes of investors, and the moral need to prevent the exploitation of an unfair advantage in the trade in securities that derives from the access of part of the publicto information, which may even lead to the majority of the public that does not have access to information to withdraw its hands from investments in the capital market.  Counsel for the accuser referred to the harsher punishment for the offense over the years by the legislature, and argued that as early as 2013, the Supreme Court warned that prison sentences would be imposed on those who use insider information, even on a limited scale and on those who are not repeat actors or professional offenders, while referring to criminal appeal 6020/12 State of Israel v.  Eden (April 29, 2013) (hereinafter: The Kadetz case).
38. In connection with the circumstances of the commission of the offenses, they claimed that the defendant continued to conduct himself in the framework of his relationship with Birnbaum, the insider, from 2012 to 2018, and that he was exploited to gain an advantage as an investor, with Birnbaum "generally refraining" from disclosing him. In this context, it was pointed out that according to the indictment, the defendant used to exert pressure on Birnbaum to provide her with insider information.  According to the accuser's counsel, at first, Birnbaum tried to dissuade her from making use of the insider information he gave her as part of the shared information in the framework of their relationship, in the expectation that she would not make use of the information, and even became angry with her when she used it, as detailed in the first charge.  For her part, she was angry with him when the information did not yield her the result she wanted.  According to M., later on, due to the connection and pressure exerted by the defendant, he voluntarily provided her with insider information.  According to them, the circumstances of the commission of the offenses indicate that the defendant acted in a planned manner in order to make the best of the information she held and that she took advantage of the information absolutely.
39. According to the accusing counsel, the defendant missed Birnbaum and is the perpetrator of the offenses. This is in view of her relatively high role and the commission of the offenses while influencing Birnbaum, despite his attempts to dissuade her from making use of the information, and even more so in the framework of the first indictment.  They further claimed that the defendant acted out of a motive of "pure greed for money", and caused high damage to the investing public, in the amount of approximately ILS 184,000.  In the overall circumstances, their petition is that a punishment range ranging from 9 months of community service to one year of actual imprisonment be determined.  In this context, we referred to the punishment imposed on Birnbaum with consent and in the framework of a mediation proceeding, as well as to criminal appeal 5830/21 Cohen v.  the State of Israel (June 21, 2022) (hereinafter: the Cohen case).
40. The accuser's petition is that the defendant be sentenced to the same sentence as that imposed on Birnbaum, or slightly lower, i.e., two months behind bars, or at least a prison sentence of 9 months. According to them, the starting point in determining the defendant's sentence is the punishment imposed on Birnbaum, and not necessarily the general customary punishment policy to which they also referred, while noting that in Birnbaum's case the accuser did not agree to suffice with a prison sentence to be served with community service.  They also petitioned for the forfeiture of all the seized funds that embody the profit to the defendant's account as a result of the commission of the offenses, and clarified that the accuser is not petitioning for the imposition of a fine, insofar as it indicates the requested forfeiture.
41. While comparing the defendant's case to Birnbaum's, they referred to the fact that Birnbaum was convicted of one count of providing information as an insider, despite the severity of this, but at the same time that the defendant was convicted of two charges. In addition, they argued that the gap between the defendant and Birnbaum should be reduced, despite the less severity that was determined in the case of non-insiders, due to the connection andthe importance of deterring the public in the circumstances.  It was further argued that the degree of Birnbaum's awareness is at a level slightly higher than the threshold of negligence, so that the degree of guilt next to his actions is less than the defendant's actions.  He further pointed out that unlike the defendant, Birnbaum did not pocket a financial profit.  In addition, the accuser's counsel pointed out that Birnbaum took responsibility for the commission of the offenses after the testimony of only one witness, when even before the mediation proceeding it was agreed that all the accusing evidence would be submitted, in contrast to the defendant, who confessed at the stage of the defense affair in the mini-trial that took place.
42. In connection with the defendant's petition to cancel the conviction, counsel for the accuser argued that the defendant's circumstances, as arose in the Probation Service report, did not justify granting her request, and that no evidence was presented that there was certainty that the defendant would be dismissed from her job if the conviction remained in place. In their arguments, they referred to the fact that the Supreme Court's ruling instructs that in securities and white-collar offenses, the personal circumstances of the defendants are rejected because of the public interest, inter alia, due to the need to deter the public.

The defense's arguments for the sentence in summary

43. In the arguments of the defendant's counsel for the sentence (as in the Probation Service report), complexity arose in the circumstances of the defendant's life in various aspects. The details heard in the arguments for the sentence are presented briefly and in part, in order to preserve the privacy of the defendant.  It should be clarified that I have put before me everything that was argued and the matter was fully considered at the time of sentencing.
44. Counsel for the defendant referred to the report and delved into her arguments about the circumstances of the defendant's life, the relationship with Birnbaum from 2012 and for about seven years, and the difficult events she experienced over the years. According to her, the defendant committed the offenses against the background of financial and personal distress, the economic gain was a kind of "hunting for the road" for her, and the person who committed the offenses was not making money, but for reasons of distress and poverty.  In this context, she claimed that as part of the relationship with Birnbaum, the defendant was exposed to a great deal of information regarding the shares of SodaStream over the years, which could have given her an advantage, but she chose not to use the information, until the date close to the end of the relationship.  In her arguments, counsel for the defendant detailed the circumstances and events that she claimed were behind the events.
45. Counsel for the defendant expressed resentment at the "strategic-tactical" structure that she claimed the accuser had adopted between the defendant and Birnbaum, and her request that Birnbaum's agreed punishment serve as a criterion for the defendant's punishment. In this context, she argued that due to Birnbaum's agreement to serve a prison sentence behind bars, the accuser agreed to amend the indictment against him in a lenient manner, as amended, even while deleting the first charge, while the accuser did not agree to delete the first charge in the defendant's case.
46. She further claimed that there is a clear difference between Birnbaum's case and the defendant's, which is learned from the age gap between them and the class gap. Thus, she argued that while the defendant comes from a difficult and weakened background, lacking knowledge of the capital market, Birnbaum is a man of power and influence, a talented CEO of a successful company, who carries out huge deals with international entities.  She also pointed out that according to the facts of the second indictment in which the defendant confessed, Birnbaum urged the defendant to act as she did.  In addition, she pointed out that Birnbaum was indeed sentenced to 60 days in prison, but was released after receiving a pardon, according to her, after 12 days of imprisonment, in an accelerated proceeding.  It also referred to the fact that Birnbaum was fined only ILS 50,000.
47. Counsel for the defendant petitioned to overturn the defendant's conviction and argued that there was a clear need to adopt a rehabilitative and progressive punishment in her case, as reflected in the report of the Probation Service, whose recommendation to overturn the conviction was fully adopted by the Probation Service. In addition, she claimed that a conviction would lead to the defendant's dismissal from her job for several years, in a company that is traded on NASDAQ and is required to comply with the highest American regulations.  She claimed that the conviction would cause her to lose her source of income.  In this context, she submitted DA/3, which attests to her success in her work, and DA/4.
48. Another claim of harm to thefamily aspect of the defendant's conviction. This is since about a year ago, the defendant's sister, who lived with her family in the United States, passed away.  According to her, the defendant is in close contact with her nephews, and a conviction would thwart any possibility of flying to the United States to visit and support them.  The defendant's fragile situation was tasted, in view of her family and personal circumstances detailed in the report, as well as following a benevolent relationship that the defendant had and recently, according to her, due to the legal proceedings, it came to an end.  Counsel for the defendant also referred to the report and document D/5 in connection with the defendant's condition and the difficulty and loss she experienced in recent years, as well as the alleged difficulty she experienced during the search conducted as part of the interrogation in her apartment.
49. In the overall circumstances, she argued that a conviction and dismissal would cause the defendant severe damage and break her spirit. It was argued that in the defendant's case, the rehabilitative interest and the public interest converge, since she is a positive person, who works and works for society and for the benefit of others, who engages in good and beneficial activities, including ongoing volunteer activity, and the good of society is reflected in the defendant's rehabilitation and saving her life.
50. In her arguments, she referred to criminal case (Tel Aviv Economics) 29436-05-16 State of Israel v. Rado (November 30, 2017) (hereinafter: the Rado case) and to the reasons that were at the basis of the court's decision there to cancel the conviction forthe same offense, due to the damage that would be caused to Rado from the conviction, and to the concern that projects in which she was involved would be harmed.  This is despite the fact that according to the defense attorney, Rado could have apparently stayed at the company where she worked, when it came to a businesswoman in a senior position, whose background and life circumstances were apparently not similar tothose of the defendant.
51. The defendant's attorney's petition is to cancel her conviction and that she will be imposed, while adopting the recommendation of theProbation Service, a rehabilitative punishment in the form of a probation order and a probation order, while clarifying that the defendant is willing to perform probation work on a higher scale than that determined by the Probation Service. Alternatively, thather conviction would remain in place, she petitioned to suffice with a deterrent punishment, looking to the future, and to order the return of the seized funds to the defendant.  According to her, acivil lawsuit was filed and the defendant paid the full amount.  In addition, she claimed that the defendant was the only one supporting her mother, and that in Birnbaum's case, the plea bargain included a financial component in the amount of only ILS 50,000.

The defendant's words

52. The defendant referred to the commission of the offenses, expressed regret for her actions and for the harm they caused. She also referred to the period that passed close to the commission of the offenses and the difficulties she had to deal with.  The defendant shared the complex circumstances and events she experienced.  According to her, she committed the offense lacking sufficient awareness of the severity of the acts and the social harm they entail.  According to her, she acted out of distress "and not from a place to get rich," in the hope that she would be able to lead an independent life and not be dependent on others.  The defendant asked for consideration of her situation, since the procedure, including the search, investigation and trial, was in itself an unbearable sea of straws for her, and caused her great sorrow, pain and shame.  In addition, she shared the difficulty she experienced from the death of her brother, the illness anddeath of her father, the loss of her best friend at the Nova party, and the fact that she was present at the scene of a terror attack.  According to her, despite all the difficulties, she works and manages to make a living and help her family members who need her help, and to support her orphaned nephews.  Her request is for assistance in her rehabilitation while overturning her conviction, as an act of trust in her on the part of the court.

The question of conviction

53. As a rule, a legal proceeding of an adult who has been proven to have committed a criminal offense will end in a conviction.  The termination of a proceeding without a conviction is an exception that has a place in the existence of exceptional circumstances, in which there is no reasonable relationship between the damage expected of the defendant from the conviction and the severity of the offense.  The case law established two cumulative conditions that must be examined in order to avoid a conviction or to annul it: first, when the conviction will seriously harm the defendant's rehabilitation; and second, when the type of offense allows the conviction to be waived in the circumstances of the case without materially harming the other sentencing considerations (Criminal Appeal 2083/96 Tamar Kattab v.  State of Israel, IsrSC 52(3) 337, 342 (1997) (hereinafter: the Kattab Rule).
54. The defense has the burden of persuading that in the circumstances of the case, the individual rehabilitation considerations of the defendant should be preferred over the considerations of the public interest in the conviction (see normative reference inCriminal Appeal 5985/13 Eban v. State of Israel (April 2, 2014), para.  7).  "Where in special and exceptional circumstances there may be an extremely unreasonable relationship between the importance of the general public conviction and the intensity of the harm to the defendant expected from the conviction, there may be justification for making use of the judicial authority of non-conviction" and the question also depends on the nature of the defendant and the other circumstances (Criminal Appeal 9893/06 Laufer v.  State of Israel, 2007 (4) 4546, p.  4561).
55. As has been determined more than once in case law, when examining the damage that will be caused to the defendant as a result of the conviction, the defense must point to real and concrete serious damage, and it is not enough to raise theoretical scenarios that it is impossible to know whether they will materialize in the future. However, even when serious concrete damage from the conviction is proven, it is clear that this does not automatically lead to its annulment, and this is a delicate balancing formula.  Cancellation of a conviction will be justified, as stated, only in those cases in which there is an unreasonable relationship between the damage expected to the defendant from the conviction and the severity of the offense, when the accumulation of circumstances related to the defendant and the offense justifies not imprinting a "mark of disgrace of criminality" on him (the Kattab ruling).  This is even when the defendant has no criminal record.
56. When I came to examine the required conditions, I gave my opinion that the defendant wishes to cancel her conviction for three offenses of using insider information under section 52D of the Securities Law. I have put before me the seriousness of the offense, taking into account the protected values and the purposes underlying it, the moral and practical aspects, and the importance of maintaining the fairness of the capital market and the equality between investors.  This is also in order to ensure the proper functioning of the capital market in an efficient manner, to establish the public's confidence in it, and to ensure that the majority of the public does not shy away from investments (see the words of the Supreme Court in the Kadetz case and the Cohen case).
57. I have also given my attention to the characteristics of the offense that raise the difficulty in quashing the conviction for committing it. In this context, the fact that this is an offense based on an economic motive, which is easy to commit and difficult to detect, so that it is very important todeter the public from committing it.  This is liable to erode the annulment of the conviction (see Criminal Appeal 2555/13 Nahmias v.  State of Israel (January 9, 2024), para.  22 (hereinafter: the Nahmias case)).  Due to the economic motive underlying the offense, an inherent punishment component alongside it is an economic punishment component, such as a fine.  However, a fine cannot be imposed if a conviction is overturned.  This is because a fine is not included among the possible sanctions listed in section 192A of the Criminal Procedure Law, 5742-1982, which the court may impose on a defendant when his conviction is annulled (see for more information: the Cohen case, paragraphs 13-14).  With regard to forfeiture, according to Section 39 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Arrest and Search) [New Version], 5729-1969, the court may, in addition to any penalty imposed, order the forfeiture of an object, if the person convicted of the offense committed with the object is its owner.
58. Although the aforesaid does not mean that there is a hermetic barrier for the court to make use of its authority tooverturn a conviction for the commission of the offense in question in the appropriate cases, it is clear that in view of the characteristics of the offense, the acceptance of a petition to overturn a conviction for this type of offense must be done sparingly, and in very exceptional and exceptional circumstances.
59. This was the case in Rado's case, to which the defense attorney referred. In the Rado case, as in the case of the defendant before me, we were talking about someone who was neither a woman of the face nor a woman of the capital market.  Rado served as Vice Chairman and Head of Budgets at McCann Erickson Israel, which is owned by an American parent company traded on the US Stock Exchange.  Witnesses testified on its behalf who clarified that a manager of a company who was convicted of violations of the Securities Law is obligated to retire from the company.  Rado was the third link in the chain of information, which she received from her brother on a one-time basis, and she invested in the shares of CompuGen on a one-time basis in a total of about ILS 55,000.  The financial profit she made was about ILS 20,000.
60. In its decision to overturn Rado's conviction, the court took into account, among other things, the fact that this was a single incident and a limited scope of investment, and that Rado did not initiate the event and that the information was given to her by her brother (with whom she had a complex relationship) who contacted her, and not by the woman of the interior. It was determined that Rado had established the evidence that a conviction would lead to the termination of her employment and that this would significantly harm her rehabilitation.  In addition, her personal circumstances have been defined as "exceptional," and she has been defined as an active social figure involved in of the most important public social projects within the McCann Valley framework, which she initiated and executed, and in which a conviction may nullify or reduce her involvement.  In addition, with regard to the proceeding against her, it was noted that there was a "visibility difficulty" in light of an enforcement arrangement made with another who admitted to using inside information that came to him from Rado's brother, when the scope of the offense in his case was higher in terms of the total investment, profit andsophistication.
61. In our case, in contrast to Rado, the defendant was convicted of committing three offenses in the years 2017-2018, as part of two charges. According to the indictments, the defendant invested in SodaStream shares, while using insider information, and executed purchase and sale transactions of the shares, in several stages, which resulted in a total financial profit of approximately ILS 184,000.  Unlike Mardu, who received the aforementioned insider information from her brother on a one-time basis, which he received from the insider, and did not initiate receiving it, the defendant, who received the information as part of her 2012 relationship with Birnbaum, an insider, admitted that she was "aware that her proximity to Birnbaum might give her an advantage as an investor in SodaStream shares, and therefore pressured him from time to time to provide her with information about the company that would bring her profits as a result of trading in its shares." (Section 5 of the general part of the indictment).  The details of the first indictment also indicate that the defendant used most of the current funds in her bank account at the time of the purchase of the shares following the information, and that she expressed to Birnbaum anger that the information he passed on did not yield her the profit she expected.
62. According to the indictment, the defendant even continued to use insider information as detailed in the second indictment, which is the main charge in the indictment, and thus is of considerable severity. The indictment also details a series of active actions carried out by the defendant in order to take advantage of the information she received and maximize her profits.  It was detailed that the defendant contacted the "Phoenix" company dozens of times in order to expedite the redemption of a savings fund she owned and collected the money from a loan she gave to a family member.  The facts also detail that even before the publication of the report, the defendant had issued sales orders to the shares she had purchased at a price higher than the prices of the last share transactions, knowing that they would not respond immediately and in anticipation of an increase in the share price following the publication of the report.
63. Without ignoring the fact that according to the facts of the second indictment, Birnbaum urged the defendant to invest all of her savings in the company's shares on the basis of the insider information relevant to the indictment, and also instructed her to take actions to obscure the unusual trading and conceal the offenses they committed, and she purchased, on his recommendation, in addition to SodaStream shares, shares of Amazon - it appears that the circumstances of the commission of the offenses are very different and more serious than the circumstances in which Rado committed the offense.
64. It should be noted that due to the repetition and perfection of the acts, it is clear that the defendant's actions are not spontaneous and one-time (as opposed to Rado), and these are ongoing acts characterized by prior planning, sophistication, preparation, and activity. This, without excluding Birnbaum's detailed part in the facts of the indictment in which the defendant confessed, and without determining that the defendant was the perpetrator of the offenses or the one who missed it, as the accuser claimed.  This is my conclusion even after giving some weight to the defendant's statement that she was not fully aware of the significance of her actions and the harm caused by them, and that as the facts of the indictment indicate "she had a very basic understanding of the capital market" and the few trading actions she carried out were carried out after consultation with Birnbaum (paragraph 4 of the indictment).
65. As to the reasons that led the defendant to commit the offenses, the parties disagree on the question of whether the defendant acted out of "pure greed for money" as the defendant claims, or because of a period of crisis and personal difficulty, alongside financial distress and the lack of a supportive back, as she claims, but in any case, and even if she acted out of distress and poverty, during a period of crisis against the background of struggles throughout her life, andonly close to severing the relationship with Birnbaum - this does not significantly diminish the severity of her actions in relation to the considerations for canceling the conviction. This is given the series of active actions that it has taken, as aforesaid, in considerable sums, when it comes to a person who acted for the purpose of generating profits and for an economic motive, even while realizing all of her savings in order to maximize profit.  Thus, between February 2017 and August 2018, the defendant invested approximately ILS 450,000 in SodaStream shares on both charges, and earned a total financial profit of approximately ILS 184,000 from the sale of the shares.
66. Given the circumstances of the commission of the offenses and their characteristics, prima facie, there is difficulty in annulling the conviction in this case, and the defense should have established with the evidence the most significant and severe concrete damage to the defendant from the conviction, in order to try to persuade that there is "an extremely unreasonable relationship between the importance of the conviction and the general public interest and the intensity of the harm to the defendant expected from the conviction" (the Ketav ruling) - but after examining all the defense's arguments, Even alongside the Probation Service's report and its recommendation andthe documents relating to the defendant's personal circumstances, including the complexity of her situation and her work (D/3 - D/7), I have reached the conclusion that this is not the case in his case.
67. With regard to the defendant's fear that she will be fired from her workplace: the defendant is valued in her workplace and is highly praised for her achievements. It is evident that she devotes a great deal of effort to her professional achievements (D/3).  She feared that in light of the examination of her criminal background, including in the field of finance and American regulation, she would be fired from her job if her conviction remained in place, understandably and naturally, but although the importance of preserving the defendant's source of income is understood, I did not find that this justifies the cancellation of her conviction in the circumstances.
68. First, no unequivocal evidence was presented that the defendant would indeed be dismissed from her job as long as her conviction remained in place. Second, even if the defendant is fired as the defense claims, I am not convinced that she will not be able to find another job that matches her skills.  It should be remembered that we are not dealing with a person who is engaged in a profession that requires a license that may be revoked following a conviction (and it has already been determined that even when a defendant is found to be at risk of having his license revoked, the question of revocation of the license should be decided by the competent authority by law and not by the court (Criminal Appeals Authority 5018/18 Omer Buzaglo v.  State of Israel, para.  9 (October 21, 2018); Criminal Appeal Authority 923/19 Anonymous v.  State of Israel, para.  8 (April 2, 2019)).  As is well known, the mere existence of an economic conviction implication, which is also uncertain, does not establish serious concrete damage that justifies the annulment of the conviction, especially when it comes to a person who committed an economic offense as in our case (Nahmias, paragraph 2).  Nor is it enough that alongside the possibility of economic harm, there is an emotional implication, stemming from the importance of the workplace for the defendant, anddamage to her self-image.
69. The alleged damage, which is expressed in the defendant's desire to visit her nephews living in the United States, who were orphaned by their mother, and the fear that a conviction would prevent this, does not justify the cancellation of the conviction.  This claim has not been proven, but even if we assume that the defendant's conviction is liable to create difficulties in entering the United States, it is not enough to constitute a counterweight to the public interest in the conviction in the balance of considerations mentioned above.  Itis important to remember that conviction, naturally, carries with it side effects that are not part of the concrete punishment, which affect the convict in various areas of life.
70. I have given my consideration to the recommendation of the Probation Service to positively consider the revocation of the defendant's conviction, to the defense's arguments regarding her circumstances, and to what she said in her testimony. In this framework, I considered the rule detailed in the report in relation to the circumstances and characteristics of her life, as well as the impression that the defendant is not characterized by fraudulent or marginal patterns, when it appears that the offenses were committed by her during a period of crisis in her life and she was deterred from the legal process, and is participating in favorable treatment.  The Probation Service report andthe documents (D/5) indicate that the defendant's condition may deteriorate in times of crisis.  It is not impossible that the alleged fear that a conviction will harm her spirit, lead to a certain deterioration in her situation, and require her to deal with a difficult situation.
71. Alongside the aforesaid, a review of the documents also reveals difficult life situations that the defendant has faced over the years. The defendant, with her bravery and resilience, succeeded time and time again in overcoming the same obstacles that came her way.  Today, and in contrast to past circumstances, the defendant sees her family members as supportive figures, and so I was also impressed by her mother and brother-in-law, who gave their testimony to the sentence and spoke in praise of her.  It also emerges that the defendant is being treated, is aware of her difficulties, is making progress in treatment and is working hard to improve her condition.
72. I have not lost sight of the defendant's professional achievements and her qualifications, as indicated by the Probation Service report and the evidence submitted to the sentence. Her efforts to rehabilitate and devote her time to promoting, positive and beneficial activities are also evident and come into consideration.  The same is true of the difficulty she experienced in the course of the investigation and the trial, as she also shared in her testimony.  However, the details of the above, even together with all the damages alleged from the conviction, are not sufficient to justify the annulment of the conviction in the overall circumstances, and I am not persuaded that there is an extremely unreasonable relationship between the importance of the conviction and the general public interest and the intensity of the harm expected from the conviction.
73. It should be remembered that while the Probation Service's recommendation to consider annulling the conviction is valuable, as is well known, the court is not bound by its recommendation, and its considerations are broader (see, for example: Criminal Appeals Authority 9118/12 Prigin v. State of Israel (January 1, 2013), para.  11).
74. In conclusion, I saw fit to quote from the words of the Honorable Justice Sohlberg in the Cohen case, where the appellants' petition to cancel the conviction was rejected:

"We tried to do the opposite with respect to the rights of the appellants - their rights are many, their merits are evident - but many are the defendants in economic offenses in general, and in securities offenses - mainly offenses of use of insider information - in particular, whose lifestyle is not criminal, but normative and beneficial.