As for the aggravating circumstances of the offense, these may stem from the sophistication of the fraud, its scope and dimensions, or whether it is the result of a planned, systematic and prolonged effort. In addition, the special status of the offender vis-à-vis his victim, which gives him credibility, is also important, and the question of whether the fraud involves the commission of another offense is also important (see, for example: Criminal Appeal 2955/94 State of Israel v. Dori, N(4) 573).
Lack of Response to the Indictment and Defendant's Silence in the Interrogation
- Section 152(b) 30Kindness Establishes the following:
"The defendant's failure to respond to the charge or to the court's questions as stated in subsection (a) may serve as a reinforcement of the weight of the prosecution's evidence; The court will explain to the defendant the consequences of his abstention."
As the scholar Yaakov Kedmi points out in his book On Criminal Procedure 1367 (Part Two A, Updated Edition, 5769-2009):
"The defendant is indeed 'entitled' to remain silent and not respond at all to the charge... However, his silence at this stage can be attributed evidentiary weight to his duty, and it may serve as 'reinforcement' to the evidentiary weight of the prosecution's evidence... This is not a matter of 'strengthening' the prosecution's evidence that is sufficient in itself to establish a conviction... Rather, it is 'in strength' that accumulates to the prosecution's evidence, and sets the scales in favor of the defendant's duty where the prosecution's evidence without 'reinforcement' is not sufficient for this."
The question that arises is whether the defendant's refusal to respond to the indictment should be attributed any significance to his duty, in the circumstances of this case. Another question relates to the defendants' silence, partially or completely, during the interrogation before the customs investigators or in front of the Israel Police.
The rule is that the silence of a suspect during his interrogation, even though it is a basic right, may serve as a support for the prosecution's evidence against him. This rule is enshrined in section 28(a) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers – Arrests), 5756-1996.