Call No. 1846 of November 2, 2018 - The defendant and a certain man speak Russian, and the defendant asks: "Do you have some kind of phone... such a cheap phone with some kind of card? Isn't there such a thing (unclear)? You listen, you don't listen, you don't know." In her testimony, the defendant denied the claim that she was looking for another phone that would not have wiretapping so that she could speak freely (p. 558).
- Exhibits P/138, P/137 are a working paper that summarizes the entries in the defendant's diary, and a disk copy of the diary photocopy. According to the plaintiff, the person who edited the workpaper saw that some of the pages in the diary were missing. The sums that appeared in the diary amounted to the sum of ₪24,585 and NIS 425. The defendant claimed that she was not familiar with the aforementioned data (p. 578). She confirmed that it was her diary and not that of the defendant, who was always with her at her place of work, and added that there may have been cancellations that she did not record in the diary (pp. 578-579). According to her, a large part of the diary had a contract (p. 578).
P/15 The defendant's interrogation dated November 8, 2018, p. 30 - In the same part, the defendant stated that apart from her entry in the diary there was no other record of the rental management in the villa. In her testimony, the defendant claimed that she did not know what the defendant had written down (contrary to what she said to the police, in which she positively stated that there was no longer a record) (pp. 542-543). She claimed in her testimony that at the time of her interrogation she was busy with the fact that her child was with a social worker and therefore she may have said something incorrect (p. 543).
- Exhibit P/139, a collection of WhatsApp correspondence between the defendants, between 4.7.2017 and 30.8.2018, regarding the rental of the motel. The defendant stated that in one of the cases she received beauty treatment instead of a monetary payment, and did not remember whether a contract was drawn up with the tenant in that case (p. 579). In the case of another tenant (Anna the ballerina), the defendant testified that in the end the tenant did not come to the motel (p. 581).
- Exhibit P/140 - Table of Exhaustion of Cash Deposits in the Defendants' Bank Accounts. To the question of whether the funds deposited in cash were part of the defendants' income, she replied in the negative, adding that in her opinion it was a matter of the defendant buying and selling cars every year, and depositing the money (p. 582). The prosecutor reminded the defendant that in the defendant's cross-examination it emerged that a significant part of the sale of the cars was made by bank transfer, but the defendant insisted that the money was from the sale of cars and added that she herself had also sold a pair of earrings and another item, and had deposited the sum of NIS 10,000 (p. 583). When it comes to large sums, they do not originate from the rental of the villa. Of the rent, NIS 4,000-5,000 was deposited by the defendant. According to the defendant, the sums appearing in P/140 correspond to the cars, and there were no bank transfers regarding the cars, except perhaps one by an Arab buyer (p. 584). The defendant claimed that she did not know what part of the money came from the rental, since she got married so that someone else would handle the accounts (p. 585).
- The defendant drew up a contract and issued a receipt tax invoice to anyone who rented a paid unit (p. 585). According to her, a contract was also drawn up in Vika's case, but Vika informed her that the police had taken the contract from her (when, according to the plaintiff, there is no such contract in the investigation material) (pp. 585-586).
- The defendants transferred all the contracts and income reports to CPA Menachem Dotan (p. 586). It is unable to give an estimate of the amount of income from the motel in the years 2015-2018 (p. 588).
- To the argument that apart from the diary and cash deposits in the bank, the defendants had no other documentation in real time, the defendant replied that the defendant had a list (however, this was prepared retroactively, submitted in framework N/6) (p. 589). The defendant added that the defendant had folders that the police had taken (p. 590).
- Affidavit N/6 - The defendant signed without reading it (p. 591). She was questioned in her testimony regarding various appendices that were attached to the affidavit. At a certain point, the defendant claimed that she relied on her attorney and her husband, that she did not have time to read all the material, and that she was not even able to read so much in a row, because she was hyperactive (p. 599).
- As to the "notice of closure of business/declaration" in the case of N.K. Building (P/6, p. 35), she explained that it was a matter of freezing a business and not of a closure (p. 594).
- "Explanations for the receipt of cash" (N/6, Appendix 3) – the defendant testified that she did not prepare the aforementioned document. I will note that this document lists ten different sums totaling NIS 1,090,500: from the sale of cars (three amounts), from the sale of the contents of an apartment (two amounts), from a 50th birthday gift, from the sale of an apartment of the defendant's mother, the sale of earrings, money from a friend and money from the defendant's sister. The defendant testified that her sister was very wealthy and gave her a birthday gift of ₪2,000. To the claim that the document contained a sum of ₪20,000 from the sister, she replied that she had received both sums. To the question of why she did not mention the gift money from the sister earlier, she replied that it was a gift that she did not deposit (p. 596). She also testified that the defendant sold three or four cars (p. 596).
- K.'s tax invoices Building for motel services (P/6, Appendix E) – The defendant testified that this was the defendant's handwriting and confirmed that everything was done with her knowledge and consent (p. 599).
- K. Income Report Building for 2015 (P/6, Appendix E) - The defendant testified once again that she had transferred all the data to the accountant. If there is an omission, it is related to the accountant and not to the defendants (p. 600). The defendant forwarded to the accountant agreements with tenants and not invoices (p. 602).
- K. Building for 2016 (N/6, Appendix E) – According to the report, no income was reported from renting the villa (p. 603). The defendant responded that they always reported but that the CPA was late in the reports and that she did not know how things worked (p. 603). To the question of whether it was logical that an entire year passed without receiving a single shekel for rent, she replied that there were situations in which the villa stood empty, and that it was possible (p. 604).
- Assessment summaries of the defendants for the years 2017 and 2018 (P/6, Appendix F) – according to which the couple's joint income from rent amounts to NIS 33,000 for 2017 and NIS 38,000 for 2018. The defendant testified that the accountant reported according to the data that the defendants provided him with (pp. 605-606).
- The list of rents (P/6, Appendix H, p. 236) – According to the list in 2016, the rents amounted to NIS 39,600 (of which NIS 28,000 was from the apartment in Pardes Hanna), so that according to this list, there was income from renting the motel in 2016. According to the defendant, if this is recorded with the defendant, this is correct (p. 607). Regarding the discrepancy between the data in this list and the N.K. Building for 2016, the defendant argued that the accountant should be questioned (p. 607).
- Lease agreements, most of which are signed by the defendant (P/6, Appendix H) -
An agreement dated February 18, 2015 with Lior Benin, for a unit on the basement floor, for a period of 12 months until February 20, 2016, in the amount of NIS 3,800 per month. The defendant's signature is on the agreement, but according to her, sometimes the defendant signed in her name (pp. 608-610).