When it comes to charges that are intertwined and intertwined, a decision will be made jointly regarding these charges.
The Defense of Justice Claim
- In the last part of the introductory chapter to their summaries, counsel for defendant 1 argued, Twist"IV Kenneth Mann and Yaron Gat, the argument that Defendant 1 should be acquitted of all the charges attributed to him, since he has the defense from justice. The basis for this argument lies in a number of elements. The first element is "improper discrimination," since, it is claimed, during the hearing of the evidence, the court was exposed to a long list of prosecution witnesses "Involved and questionable", that according to the evidentiary criteria set in the case of Defendant 1 and the other defendants in this case, there was room to prosecute them as well. The witnesses in question are: Haim Buchris, Shlomo Sweet, Aharon Calderon, Kobi Zoaretz, Avi Ben Nissan, Nathan Harpaz, Elhanan Tenenbaum, Mario Weissman, Mahfouz Shlofi and Alon Granot. According to the defense, the prosecution did not provide a convincing and concrete explanation for this discrimination.
According to the defense's version, the argument raised by the prosecution that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute those witnesses, or that the evidence against these witnesses was discovered only in the later stages of the proceeding, should be rejected. According to the defense, this is evidence that existed from the outset, and according to the prosecution's own thesis, there was no reason not to prosecute them.
Therefore, it was argued, this is an improper and irrelevant discrimination, the sole purpose of which is to incriminate Defendant 1, at any cost.
Another argument that was raised, in the framework of the petition to acquit the defendant for reasons of protection from justice, is an unjustified delay in the filing of the indictment. The alleged offenses were committed in the years 1999-2000, while the indictment was filed only in 2005. The defense argues that the prosecution did not provide a real explanation for this delay, and its claim that it was not possible to conclude the investigation due to the abduction of Elhanan Tenenbaum to Lebanon, is unsubstantiated. Even according to the prosecution's approach, the case does not rise and fall on Tenenbaum's testimony, and in any event, this is a person who is "Archi-Criminal and Archi-A crook, who lacks any basic credibility, and therefore his testimony has no weight.". It was further argued that Elhanan Tenenbaum had nothing to do with a significant part of the charges attributed to Defendant 1. According to the defense's approach, this is an extreme, excessive and unjustified delay in filing the indictment, which causes significant legal torture to the defendant and impairs his ability to defend himself properly and his right to a fair trial. This delay is in material contradiction to the principles of justice and legal fairness, and therefore defendant 1 should be acquitted on this ground as well.