Needless to say, the receipt of the original CDs of the conversation as evidence also requires the trend of case law in recent years to move from the rule of "admissibility" to the rule of "weight", as long as there is no concern that the copy does not reflect the content of the original conversation. In this regard, the words of the Honorable Justice Cheshin are appropriate in Other Municipality Applications 6205/98 Unger v. Ofer, IsrSC 55(5) 71, 86:
"The accepted opinion in contemporary legislation is that the rule of best evidence should be established as a rule of admissibility of the plaintiff, the presentation of a source, and a rule required for the probable reliability of the evidence submitted to the court – a document or any other evidence – and the background of that evidence... Thus, in the computer and printer systems that we are familiar with in our work, we will find it difficult to talk about origin and copy, since the DNA. of all the "original" documents (or copy) of that DNA. He. It is therefore appropriate for us to turn our words around the rule of source and copy as a rule of admissibility, to a discourse about the reliability of witnesses and a reliable product of a process based on a reliable system for the production of documents."
In light of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that there is no technical impediment to receiving the full transcript of the original conversations that took place between Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 and Yehoshua Shlosh. It should be noted that this opinion did not change even after I was presented with testimonies on the subject of the admissibility of the recording on behalf of Defendant 1, and also after I examined the detailed arguments that appeared in his summaries. This position is also true, as stated, with regard to the recording of the conversation that took place between Defendant 3 and Yehoshua Shlosh, and this will serve as evidence both in the main case and in the parallel case.
Hearing and Decision on Charges 1 and 2
- The main argument, which is woven like a thread in the summaries of defendant 1, is that this defendant is a legitimate businessman who acted honestly and professionally, and fell victim to conspiracies and fraudulent acts on the part of a group of people, who seek to fail him and make false accusations against him. In this way, it was argued that most of the prosecution witnesses, including the other defendants, with the exception of Yehoshua Shlosh, joined together to burden Uri Resh with the commission of the offenses in the case at hand, in an attempt to extricate themselves from criminal involvement.
Since this argument is common to all the charges, I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to open the hearing, with regard to the offenses attributed to Defendant 1, with reference to the question of his credibility and the credibility of the statements he presented before the court.