According to the summaries, the accuser no longer includes income from renting a property in Russia in the scope of the income attributed to the defendants.
- As for the motel, the accuser reduced in its summaries the amount attributed to the defendants in this matter, both in terms of the period (the years 2015 to 2018 only) and in terms of the total income that was omitted. The accuser argued that the defendants' claim that they had transferred all the documents related to the rents to the accountant Menachem Dotan, as well as their claim that to the extent that the income was not reported, it was the decisions and actions of the accountant should be rejected.
- The accuser referred to the fact that the defendants submitted blank tax invoices in the framework of Exhibit N/6, as well as to the defendant's confirmation that there were no leases in the context of the short-term rental of the units, and to his claim that the police took all the files from him. Insofar as the police possessed relevant material, it is presumed that the defendant would have submitted a request to receive the said material, and the fact that he did not do so shows that this is a false claim.
- The wiretapping from 2018, the WhatsApp correspondence, and the defendant's diary show that the defendant's claim that there was no short-term rental during 2018 is false. In addition, the sequence of wiretapping conversations clearly shows the ongoing involvement of the two defendants in the management of the hotel's business. In addition, one of the conversations (No. 4716) contradicts the defense's version that sick children are allowed to stay free of charge in the motel's housing units.
- The accuser claimed contradictions in the defendant's version regarding the period during which his daughter lived in the motel and in relation to the period during which he himself lived in the motel.
- The accuser also referred to the contradictions between the reports submitted by the defendants for the years 2014 to 2018 (in the years 2014 to 2016 in the framework of N.K. Building) and the list of rents prepared by the defendant.
- The defendants refrained from bringing additional witnesses whose names were mentioned as having lived in the motel for free. Affidavits of some of them were submitted. Similarly, only an affidavit was submitted by the director of the association (P/6, end of Appendix H), and she did not testify in the file. In this context, the accuser argued that any document submitted that was not submitted by its editor should be ignored, within the framework of the rules of evidence and the rules of admissibility.
- The defendant left an unreliable impression and there is sufficient evidence to convict her in the charges against her: her significant involvement in the management of the motel as indicated by the wiretapping; her being a signatory to the reports; her confirmation that she came to the accountant from time to time to sit with him on the material; her conduct after the "break-in", with an emphasis on her request to the tenant Alex to disclose that he was staying at the motel for free; contradictions in her version regarding the documentation of the activity in the motel. The defendant's attempts to minimize her share and place the blame on the accountant should be rejected. In addition, there is no basis for her defamatory claims against the investigator Moti Zehavi.
- The defense witness, Ms. Victoria Zavorov, testified regarding her paid accommodation in the motel, while her name was not mentioned at all in the paid rent document compiled by the defendant and submitted in Exhibit N/6.
The defense witness, Mr. Amsalo Ababa, did not present any document to substantiate his claims, and during the period when he was alleged to have lived in the basement unit, other tenants lived in the basement – according to the documents submitted by the defendants themselves (according to Lior Benin's lease, which was submitted in framework N/6).
- CPA Menachem Dotan rejected the defendants' defense claims that he omitted income from the reports, told the defendants to report only profits and instructed them that rental income is exempt from reporting.
It was also argued that the opinion and testimony of CPA Damati did not help the defense's position at all.
- The accuser referred to Exhibit A/138, a working paper containing the concentration of the defendant's entry in her diary, regarding the amounts of income and their dates between October 2017 and November 2018, with pages missing in this diary. According to the information in the diary, it appeared that during this period they made $24,585. This sum does not include the long-term rental of the units.
- The accuser also referred to Exhibit A/140, the document for the exhaustion of the cash deposits in the defendants' bank accounts from 2014 to March 2018 (the banks' order and the findings that were submitted related only to March 2018, and therefore the findings for 2018 are only partial). According to this document, the total number of deposits for these years, to three bank accounts, is in the sum of NIS 140,892.
- The accuser clarified in her summaries that she was not insisting on calculating the income from the motel by means of the money laundering (which was the basis of the calculation in the indictment), but rather petitioned to determine the scope of the defendants' income on the basis of the cash deposits, which were mixed together with the bribe money received in cash, as will be detailed in indictment No. 16.
For 2015 - the total omission of income from the motel in the sum of the cash deposit in the amount of NIS 120,145, together with the omission of the rental income in Pardes Hanna that was transferred by bank transfer in the sum of NIS 30,000. The total of NIS 175,120 in 2015.