Second, it was alleged that selective enforcement between various officers of the hotel was made, where the claim of selective enforcement stemmed in "a decision not to prosecute the additional owners of the land and/or in identical or similar circumstances" (paragraph 78 of the preliminary arguments of March 5,2025).

15. In its response to the preliminary arguments (May 18,2025), the accuser sought to dismiss these arguments. It was argued that the claims regarding that regulatory difficulty should be addressed to an administrative court, and not to the Local Affairs Court. It was argued that the letters inviting the defendants to submit their version were sent to them by registered mail, and since they did not appear to provide their version, they had nothing to blame but themselves.  Finally, it was argued that the claims of selective enforcement constituted a fishing expedition, and were made without evidentiary basis.  It was argued that the accuser had a list of businesses that were enforced in a manner similar to the current business, and it was also argued that the prolonged duration of the violation differentiated between this proceeding and other proceedings (paras.  29-34).
16. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916In my decision of May 22,2025, I found that the preliminary arguments would be decided only after hearing the evidence in this proceeding. At the same time, I noted that the arguments regarding the non-granting of a license to the business are prima facie claims that relate to administrative discretion in relation to the license decisions, and that the case law requires extreme caution before it is possible to indirectly attack the Authority's administrative decision in the framework of the criminal proceeding. I suggested that the defendants address this matter later in the proceeding, to the extent that they stand on such arguments.
17. 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)I will also note that alongside the preliminary arguments, a detailed heresy was also filed (paragraph 91 of the motion regarding the preliminary arguments), in which it was agreed that the business required a license, and that it operated on July 4,2022; However, a dispute remained with respect to the rest of the facts, and in particular, it was argued that the indictment does not reflect the events relating to the issuance of the license as they were, and that at the relevant time defendant 2 did not serve as a manager and that the ownership of defendant 1 was also different.
18. Against the background of the heresy that was given, the case was set for the hearing of the parties' evidence, which was rejected from time to time, in a series of motions filed with the consent of the parties.
19. Ultimately, the prosecution's case was opened on January 22,2026, when the parties' evidence was heard. On behalf of the prosecution, P/1-P/4 was submitted, as was the testimony of Mr. Assaf Edelstein and P/5-8 was filed alongside it.  On behalf of the defense, P/1-N/3 and defendant 2 testified, and P/4-N/8 and P/9-10 were also submitted, and afterwards the architect, Mr. Roi Amit, also testified.  Subsequently, the parties agreed that the verdict would be published on the court and that the parties would not be required to appear in order to hear it.
20. Below I will describe the main testimonies that were heard.

The Prosecution Case

21. At the beginning of the hearing, the accused, with the consent of the defense, submitted a printout of the Registrar of Companies dated August 2,2022, which shows that Defendant 2 was a director of Defendant 1 as of June 10,2018 and as of the date of the printout (P/1). It should be noted that the printout did not mention the name of Defendant 2 as a shareholder, but only as a director, along with other directors, one of whom is Defendant 3, who was deleted from the indictment as stated in the section ‏9
22. In addition, an audit report was submitted to the business dated July 4,2022, in which it was noted that "the business appears to be open and active, and these are the findings: A reception area and a bar were seen on the entrance floor, a seating area and a bar inside which alcoholic beverages such as vodka, arak, wine, a machine for making hot drinks and soft drinks were seen in the hotel on 3 floors, with 29
23. Copied from Nevo
24. rooms, instead of room cleaning services." It was noted that 4 employees were seen at the site in addition to the active manager
25. who received the report, which dealt with customer service and reception. There were 40 customers at the site.  Also noted was the response of the active manager who was present at the inspection, Mr. Nevo Katzav, according to which "there is persecution here on a personal basis".  In addition, various photos of the hotel and its bar were attached to the report (P/3).
26. In addition, references were submitted for the delivery and delivery of an order to deliver a version to defendants 1-2. From the documents that were presented, it appears that the order to deliver a version was sent to defendant 1 at her address in Tel Aviv, about which there is no dispute, and according to the shipment tracking that was attached, it was even delivered to her.  In addition, it appears that an order to deliver a version to defendant 2 to a certain address was taken from the municipal database of the Tel Aviv Municipality.  Tracking of shipments at the Israel Post indicates that this order for delivery of a version was also delivered to its destination (P/2, P/4).
27. Following these remarks, the testimony of Mr. Assaf Edelstein, Director of the Customer Service Department in the Business Licensing Division, was heard. As part of his main investigation, he submitted a public servant's certificate that he had drawn up and which bears the date of February 21,2023 (P/5, hereinafter: "Edelstein's Public Works Industry").
28. The Edelstein Public Works Regulations show that as early as the 1990s, defendant 1 and others applied for a license to operate a hotel, café and consumption of intoxicating beverages on the premises, with an area of 888.07 square meters (later on, the applications no longer relate to a café). In the beginning, the business received a license, and the license was renewed from time to time, until in application No. 11 of 2010 it began to receive refusals (P/5, p.  17), which grew from application to application until at some point, the ownership of the hotel was changed (P/5, p.  19 onwards, and see also in the minutes of January 22,2026, at p.  40, paras.  19-29).
29. Defendant 2's name appears for the first time on the 13th application in the case, dated June 30,2020, alongside defendant 1 and another another, while the business continues to hold refusals, the main ones being the Fire and Rescue Authority and engineering licensing (P/5, pp. 23-26).  In the cross-examination, Edelstein explained that the name of defendant 2 and the other appears from this stage because he was the one who submitted the application for a business license, but could not present the same application in which the name appears (the application was subsequently filed by the defense, see below).  He argued that in terms of the Authority's conduct, it is not possible to apply for a business license in the name of a company only, and that a flesh and blood applicant is always required (January 22,2026, at p.  47, questions 11-33, p.  48, questions 1-33, p.  49, questions 1-11).
30. An examination of the sequence of events since the submission of that application reveals that at some point the material refusals were removed and the case was transferred to the status of treatment. Regarding engineering licensing, it was noted in the comments that it was required to "complete the submission of the business plan, obtain approval and adapt the business to the plan" (P/5, pp.  27-32).
31. However, on May 1,2022, the Ministry of Health again received a refusal, which was rooted both in the location of the food service and in the absence of adapted programs. In the words of the Ministry of Health (P/5, p.  36):

"1) On October 7,2022, a visit was made to the hotel and it was found that the hotel did not comply with an approved plan.  The equipment that was in the place that was supposed to be used to serve food was removed from the place and the food is served at the Opera Hotel located opposite.  2) On April 3,2022, a reminder was sent to the business owner that has not yet been answered.  3) The business owners must act to adapt the business to the approved plan or alternatively submit an up-to-date business plan."