Call No. 1544 of 31.10.2018 - A conversation between the defendant and the woman who lives with them, at the end of the accommodation. The defendant testified that it was possible that it was a company or a tenant who came through the association - even though the content of the conversation was serviced and there was no indication that it was a friendship relationship (p. 596).
Call No. 4716 of September 13, 2018 - A conversation between the defendants, regarding potential tenants who come to Israel for medical treatment and recovery, and are interested in renting a unit in a motel for six months. The two discuss the question of whether to rent them for NIS 4,500 and note that the minimum per night is ₪80. At the end of the conversation, the defendant tells the defendant to rent the unit. When the defendant was asked about the fact that the child was sick and the defendants were still collecting money, he replied that it was possible that the child did not come through the association (p. 597).
Conversation No. 766 of October 7, 2018 - A conversation between the defendants, in which the sum of $120 is mentioned. The defendant did not remember the conversation and noted that the rent may not have been executed (p. 598).
Conversation No. 6646 of October 24, 2018 - A conversation between the two defendants, in which the sum of $120 per night plus a cleaning fee of NIS 150 is mentioned. The defendant stated in his testimony that he remembered the incident, and that it may be the Armenian novel (p. 598).
Conversation No. 7230 of October 31, 2018 - A conversation between the defendants, in which the sum of $80 plus NIS 150 is mentioned. To the plaintiff's question whether anyone owed money, the defendant replied that it was apparently an affair (p. 598).
Testimony of the Defendant
Main Investigation (Transcript of September 20, 2023)
- In 2014, the defendants purchased the villa and renovated it (p. 553). The defendant's parents live in Germany and had a permanent unit in the villa (p. 553). The defendant met on Facebook the Opportunity for Life association, which helps children from the former Soviet Union. She wanted to help the association and give it apartments for its use. There were cases in which she refused clients because children were planned to come through the association (p. 553).
- The defendant denied the claim that the defendants rented out many properties without declaring their rental income to the Tax Authority. The defendants acted on the advice of the accountant who recommended that the income be in the name of the defendant's company. Over time, the defendants realized that the matter was not worthwhile and that the expenses were higher than the revenues, and therefore they separated the rental from the company's affairs. There was also a period when the defendant froze the company's activity and therefore could not use the company's name and invoices. When the defendant returned to work in real estate, she returned the company to activity, but the income did not cover the expenses (pp. 560-561).
- The defendant objected to the use of the term "motel," and claimed that she had defined the property as a "shelter-in-law's house" (p. 561). There were four units for short-term rental and another unit for long periods. The intention was to provide a place for her parents during their visits to Israel, and to try to run a rental business as well, which they did only a few times. They reported to the Income Tax, but they saw that the expenses exceeded the income. In one of the units, the defendant's daughter lived for a long time, together with her partner. Three of the units were used by children with cancer (p. 563).
The unit was rented out for long periods only once, during Vika's tenure, when she was sometimes unable to pay (p. 564). The defendant denied everything attributed to her and the defendant, including the sums stated in the indictment, and insisted that all the income was reported.
- The defendant is not connected to the rental of the apartment in Pardes Hanna. This apartment was purchased before her marriage to the defendant, and was intended to pass to the defendant's children from his first marriage (p. 566).
- As for the morning of the defendant's arrest, at 6:00 a.m. there was a loud knock on the door. The couple slept in the room with their son, and the defendant convinced the police that only one of them would enter the room to wake the defendant up so that the child would not be frightened. The child suffers from a tumor in his head, and that day she waited for the results of an MRI scan on his case. At her request, the police waited for the child to leave for school and only afterwards did they arrest the defendant and begin a search of the house (p. 543). The defendant was taken away and drove with her to her place of work. They took her mobile phone even though she was waiting for the MRI results, but they gave her the phone when the doctor called (p. 543). She said: "I went through sodomy, I went through the Gestapo, what was there is something that is hard to describe, they just screamed at me and said they took the child, the truth is that they didn't take him." (p. 544).
- Three days later, the defendant was arrested for obstructing an interrogation. She described the policemen's behavior toward her as "horrific", when five policemen screamed at her (p. 546). On the day of her arrest, she was told that her son was being taken to foster care (p. 549). One of the interrogators spoke to her rudely ("Fucking your husband in the ass") (p. 550).
- As to the manner in which the affair was exposed and the claim that the affair began with the defendant herself contacting an acquaintance who worked as a doctor in the IPS (Dr. Nona), the defendant claimed that the acquaintance had told her about the harsh working conditions at the IPS, and that the defendant had shared with her a personal matter of one of the IPS superiors. Later, it became clear to the defendant that the doctor had given false statements about the defendants, possibly in revenge for the defendant's refusal to have the doctor's son accompany her to her work as an apprentice (pp. 544-545).
Cross-examination (transcript of September 20, 2023, September 26, 2023)
- The defendant confirmed that she was a businesswoman and was registered as the sole owner of N.K. Building (p. 577). N.K. Building was engaged both in renting the villa and in activity related to Zeidpodim's apartment (p. 577). She stated in the interrogations that the person who collected most of the rent money from the tenants in the villas and reached CPA Dotan was the defendant (p. 577). She confirmed in the interrogations that she signed the tax returns and updated CPA Dotan about the villa (p. 577). The accountant recommended operating the motel through N.K. Building, and therefore recorded the hotel's income in the name of the company as of 2014 (p. 578). She froze the company's activity, at a date she does not remember. When she was referred to the notice of the closure of the business dated March 1, 2017 (P/6, Appendix 2, p. 35), she testified that CPA Dotan said that it was not possible to close a file, but that it was possible to freeze the company and then thaw it (pp. 580-581).
- When asked where she recorded the income she received from the tenants, she replied that the defendant was involved in this:
"Q: all the income every time a tenant arrived,