Income from rent and residential properties (this section relates to the motel – M.B.):
In 2014 - 12,036 NIS
In 2015 - 45, 600 NIS + 18, 670 NIS
In 2016 - no income
In 2017 - No Revenue
In 2018 - no revenue
Income from a residential apartment in Pardes Hanna - It was noted that the apartment was transferred on April 15, 2012 to the ownership of the son Ziv and Voba Shkovitzky. No income was indicated.
The opinion noted that it appears from the data that out of the five units in the motel, most of the use was for donation or for personal use. The units that were rented for short and medium term were reported in the company's reports as income or in the defendants' personal reports as income for residential use. It was also noted that a significant amount of the aforementioned funds was deposited in cash by the defendant in the bank, through deposits in the sum of NIS 10,000 per deposit, in order to save deposit fees.
Cross-examination
- The opinion was based on the documents that were attached to it (p. 634). The defendant gave the documents to the witness and the witness cannot guarantee the veracity of their contents (p. 636).
The witness was presented with additional documents, such as bank statements and reports prepared by CPA Menachem Dotan, but the witness did not refer to their content in his opinion (p. 635).
- The witness noted that he focused on tax-exempt income that the defendant had transferred to him. As he said: "He told me that this is my income, it is exempt income, I asked him for verifying documents, he brought me documents that I focused on" (p. 637). Exempt income must also be reported in the annual reports. In order to be eligible for an exemption, one must meet the tests prescribed by law (p. 638). The witness explained that long-term residential rental entitles to an exemption, and short-term rental, for a day or two, is taxable (p. 644).
The witness clarified that bribery is income that is not exempt from tax (p. 635).
- In his opinion, the witness noted that "Arkady sold his mother's apartment in Russia for the sum of $120,000, and the money in cash for the sale of the apartment was transferred to Arkady by Bridze Rezo Ben Soso, an affidavit is attached - Appendix 7." Appendix 7 to the opinion contains a "confirmation" dated January 26, 2017 (without signature and signature verification) in which the same son of his horse confirms "that I have returned the full sum of 120,000 (one hundred and twenty thousand) US dollars, which I kept at the request of Shekovitzky Evgenia bat Michael, who lives in Israel, after the sale of her apartment in the city of Samara, Russia." The witness relied on what was stated in the certificate when he wrote that the money was transferred to the defendant. To the argument that this was not stated in the said confirmation, he replied that this is how he understood the matter (pp. 644-645). The testimony also revealed that the witness did not know when the money was transferred (p. 646). When asked why the sum of $40,000 appears in the handwritten document, minus, he replied that he did not clarify it (p. 646).
- The witness also noted in his opinion that "a friend of Arkady's named Kovalov Oleg Ben Ivan gave Arkady a gift of 28,000 euros worth about NIS 110,320 in shekels," and referred to Kovalov's affidavit, Appendix 8. However, Appendix 8 contains a "confirmation" dated February 19, 2017 (without a signature) according to which Kovalov "allows an Israeli citizen who is a Kubetzky Arkady son of Vladimir to manage my money in the amount of NIS 28,000 (twenty-eight thousand) euros at his discretion."
The witness did not clarify when and how the said funds were transferred. According to his testimony, the defendant did not report the receipt of these funds (pp. 646-647).
- According to the opinion, the proceeds from the sale of personal movables to Ms. Kogan-Belkin amounted to NIS 15,000. However, in Appendix 10, to which the witness referred in his opinion, in which it was noted that Ms. Kogan-Belkin purchased earrings for this amount, the identity of the seller was not mentioned, and the name of the defendant did not appear in it. When asked about the matter, the witness had no answer other than that it was the document he received from the defendants (pp. 647-648).
- The witness did not see the total cash deposits in the defendants' bank accounts, but only what was presented to him (p. 649). He was not presented with the defendants' wiretapping conversations, their police interrogations and the diary maintained by the defendant (p. 650). He himself agreed, after describing the diary and the data collected in it over a period of four years, that it was business management (p. 651).
Charge 15 - The accuser's summaries
- With regard to the omission of the income for the bribery and theft money, which was attributed to the defendant alone, the accuser refers to the evidentiary basis detailed in the above charges and to the fact that there was no report regarding these funds. It was argued that in accordance with the case law, there is tax liability even when the source of the income stemmed from illegal activity.
- Regarding the rental of the apartment in Pardes Hanna, the accuser referred to the defendants' statements in their police interrogations, according to which they rented the apartment for NIS 2,500 until about six months earlier (May 2018), and to the bank transfers of the rent that were deposited in the defendant's bank account. These transfers were not reported and were not declared to the tax assessor. The total rental income according to the banks and according to the testimonies, was NIS 165,000 until March 2018. In his testimony in court, the defendant denied that this was his income and also denied the rental period, but according to the accuser, there is no significance to the fact that the defendant chose to transfer the rental money to his daughter and there is sufficient evidence for the rental period between 2013 and 2018.
The accuser clarified that she attributed the rent from the apartment in Pardes Hanna only to the defendant and not to the defendant.