The offense of theft is set forth in section 383 of the Penal Law. The relevant alternative for this matter is the one set forth in section 383(a)(1) of the Law:
"A person steals something if he takes and carries something that can be stolen, without the husband's consent, fraudulently and without claiming a right in good faith, when he intends at the time of taking it to permanently deprive the owner of the thing;" .
In accordance with this section, the factual element of the offense of theft consists of the following: carrying and taking; something that can be stolen; without the consent of the husband; without claiming a right in good faith. The mental element of the offense of theft is criminal thought, i.e., awareness of all the factual elements of the offense, as well as a special intention of the defendant "to deprive the owner of the thing permanently."
Hearing - General Regarding the First Three Charges
- Reuven testified, in relation to the first three charges, that the defendant demanded that he issue invoices for sums higher than the cost of the projects. The issue of Reuven's credibility and the credibility of his testimony relates to the three charges as ahead, and therefore I will already point out a number of points that indicate that this is a witness who should be trusted. First and foremost, Reuven incriminated not only the defendant, but also himself. He was convicted and sentenced for the offenses he committed in the framework of charges 1-3. In addition, Reuven saw the defendant as having influence on the question of who would carry out work in the IPS. This can be seen from his statement that he received 10-15 jobs in the IPS from the defendant, from his testimony regarding the Savyon Yard project, that he was afraid that the defendant would not give him additional jobs in the IPS, and from the testimonies of Yehudit Vaknin and Eli Yifrach about Reuven's concern for his livelihood when he realized that the defendant might prevent him from getting work in the IPS. The fact that the defendant was in Reuven's eyes the one who influenced his continued work for the IPS provides an answer to the question of why he agreed to transfer sums of money to the defendant as the defendant requested. There are other reasons that establish Reuven's reliability and the credibility of his testimony, and these will be detailed below. At this stage, I will only mention the words of the defendant in conversation no. 557 regarding the need to maintain confidentiality in the context of setting the exorbitant price of NIS 15,000 (when Reuven estimated the cost of the work at NIS 10,000-12,000). This speaks for itself.
- I will add that no interest has been proven on the part of Reuven to make false accusations against the defendant. I will mention once again that Reuven also incriminated himself in the framework of the affair. Moreover, the defendant's claim during the confrontation with the police that Reuven had made a false accusation against him on the basis of his allegations of negligent work on the part of Reuven was not substantiated and was not heard again during the defendant's testimony in court. The defendant did mention in his testimony that there were arguments between the two during the work, but he did not allege negligence on the part of Reuven. The defendant's claim is contradicted by Reuven's statement to the police that the defendant had spoken to him about other projects, a few days before Reuven's arrest. It is clear that these statements are inconsistent with the defendant's claim that Reuven was negligent in his work.
- I also do not accept the defense's argument that Reuven is not a neutral witness but rather "a witness under threats who even has an interest in harming the defendant" (see paragraph 25 of the defense's summaries). No evidence was presented that Reuven was threatened or had an interest in harming the defendant. On the contrary, during Reuven's testimony it was possible to get the impression that Reuven was reluctant to testify against the defendant and was making an effort to avoid doing so. While the police explained that he did not want to ask questions that would harm his continued work on IPS projects, in his testimony he claimed that he had received an explanation for the need for additional funds and that he was not obligated to ask questions on the matter. When the police rebuffed the defendant's claims that he was negligent, he said in his testimony that the defendant had the right to think so. In the matter of the Savyon Yard project, he claimed that he himself was concerned because of the "scandal" he made that the defendant would not give him jobs, did not mention the defendant's anger in the matter (when the defendant himself testified that he was angry and lost control in this matter), and explicitly denied threats from the defendant. This is not what anyone who seeks to harm the defendant should do.
Reuven's reluctance to testify against the defendant indicates both a lack of desire to harm the defendant, and the fact that at points where there were significant gaps between his testimony and his statements to the police (first and foremost regarding the sums he transferred to the defendant), Reuven's statements to the police should be preferred. This matter will be detailed below.