Verdict

1. After hearing the evidence of the parties and reviewing their arguments, I order the dismissal of the indictment in relation to defendant 2, on the grounds of protection from justice.
2. At the same time, I convict defendant 1 of offenses under sections 4,14 and 18 of the Business Licensing Law.
3. The following are the reasons for my decision:

The Indictment

4. The indictment in the present proceeding accuses the defendants of running a hotel business, including the consumption of intoxicating beverages at the place of service, in an area of approximately 888 square meters in the city of Tel Aviv (hereinafter: "the business" or "the hotel"). It is claimed that defendant 1 is the company that owns the business and defendant 2 is the manager of the company that owns the business.
5. According to the indictment, this is a business that requires a license, which operates without a business license, in violation of the provisions of the Business Licensing Law.
6. In addition, it was claimed that the business was operating in contravention of a judicial closure order imposed on the business and against Kuli Alma in a criminal case on 02/15/0008458, and ordered that the business should not be operated without a license or temporary permit (hereinafter: "the previous order"). It was claimed that the previous order was served on defendant 1 on January 30,2017, and came into effect on April 1,2017.
7. An inspection conducted at the site, on July 4,2022, found that the business was operating despite the lack of a license or temporary permit and despite the judicial order ordering its closure.
8. In view of the above, the two defendants were charged with offenses of operating a business without a license in violation of sections 4,14, and 15 of the Business Licensing Law, and defendant 1 of the offense of violating a judicial order under section 18 of the Business Licensing Law.
9. It should be noted that the indictment in question was amended to refer to the name of one of the prosecution's witnesses, as well as to the deletion of another defendant - Defendant 3 - whose case was closed in accordance with the dialogue that took place outside the courtroom (see decision of April 29,2025).

The sequence of events

10. The case suffered from multiple postponements, mainly related to the defense's constraints, its requests to file preliminary arguments, and its attempts to obtain a license for the business, and finally, on December 25,2024, a heresy was registered on the part of defendants 1-2, when I allowed the filing of a detailed heresy and preliminary arguments in writing, and I also set the case for hearing the parties' evidence.
11. On March 5,2025, the preliminary arguments were filed, which rested on three heads.
12. First, I was referring to the significant efforts made by the defendants to obtain a business license, when it was claimed that due to planning barriers that were put in front of them, they found themselves in a "dead-end legal whirlwind". The argument is that taking criminal proceedings against those in such a legal situation undermines the principles of legal justice and fairness, which necessitates the cancellation of the indictment.
13. Second, arguments were heard regarding the failure to collect the defendants' version prior to the filing of the indictment. It was argued that this would violate their right to a fair trial.
14. Third, arguments were raised regarding selective enforcement that was allegedly taken against the defendants. This argument is divided into two heads:

First, it was argued that the criminal enforcementhere deviated from that taken by the accuser in relation to the owners of adjacent buildings.  In this context, the defendants argued that "in the framework of this proceeding, the manner in which the enforcement powers of the local authority should be examined, while comparing the case at hand to similar cases - and in particular to the buildings adjacent to the hotel" (para.  79).  In particular, I was referred to the case of Abulafia, a co-owner of the land here, who allegedly operates a business in a nearby building with a temporary permit, despite the fact that a judicial order was imposed against him that was never complied with.  It was also argued that in that other business a balcony collapsed, and yet, the permit was not revoked.  In these circumstances, it was argued that the revocation of the permit and license of the defendants and the taking of measures against them amount to selective enforcement (paragraphs 80-86 of the preliminary arguments of March 5,2025).