Charge 1 - Hearing
- From the conversations between the defendant and Reuven it can be seen that the defendant did indeed have a direct connection with the subcontractor Reuven, and even knew how to tell him when he would receive a check from the main contractor. As for price inflation, it can be seen that in conversation No. 557, the defendant asked to close a payment of NIS 15,000, with Reuven estimating the cost at NIS 10,000-12,000. These words, from the defendant himself, certainly indicate price inflation. In the same conversation, the defendant even asked Reuven not to talk to anyone about this matter, which indicates that the defendant saw the need to take precautionary measures and confidentiality with respect to the amount of the payment.
- In addition, Reuven testified that later, when the needs of the project changed, he priced the project at about NIS 30,000, including VAT. However, the invoice he issued for the project was NIS 49,300, including VAT, after the defendant asked him to write an invoice for a higher amount. Reuven noted that at the defendant's request, the price quote was not detailed according to sections. In my understanding, such a request is certainly likely to ease the price inflation. After he received the payment and deducted VAT and National Insurance, he transferred approximately NIS 15,000 to the defendant. Reuven stood cross-examination in which he explained his profit at a price of NIS 30,000, including VAT. Reuven explained in his testimony that the cost of a ton of iron, which at the time of his testimony was about NIS 17,000, had been significantly cheaper a few years earlier, and stood at NIS 3,000-4,000. In contrast, the defendant stated in his testimony and summaries the cost of NIS 17,000 and did not address the claim that the price of iron was cheaper a few years earlier.
- I will note that in the framework of the first indictment , I did not find any significant differences between Reuven's statements to the police and his statements in his testimony with regard to the facts stated in the indictment (first and foremost the amount of money he transferred to the defendant). At the same time, I will note that even in the framework of Reuven's testimony in relation to the first charge, there is evident his reluctance to testify about the defendant's obligation.
- On the other hand, the defendant's version in his testimony, according to which he himself prepared a price quote in the amount of about NIS 71,000 and then Reuven made a price quote in the amount of NIS 44,250, contradicts the response to the indictment according to which Reuven was the one who initially priced the execution of the project at a cost of NIS 71,000 and the defendant was the one who succeeded in reducing the pricing to NIS 44,250. No explanation was given for this contradiction, and in fact the defendant's version in his testimony is a suppressed version that was not explained for its pressing, and therefore its weight is low. In addition, I have not found any evidence that Reuven priced the project at NIS 44,250.
- The defense claimed, based on the cost of NIS 17,000 per ton of iron, that Reuven paid about NIS 53,000 for the raw material for the project and that Reuven's profit from the project was about NIS 7,500, so it is not possible that he transferred NIS 15,000 to the defendant. However, the sum of NIS 53,000 alone is higher than what was actually paid to Reuven. This is not logical. On the other hand, Reuven testified that the price of a ton of iron at the relevant time was significantly lower, which led to a price quote that amounted to approximately NIS 30,000, including profit. The defendant did not refer to these statements explicitly and did not bring evidence to contradict Reuven's statements.
- In view of what has been said so far, the accuser succeeded in proving that at the first stage, when Reuven priced the cost of carrying out the work in the project in the sum of NIS 10,000-12,000, the defendant instructed him to "inflate" the price quote to the sum of NIS 15,000, and later, when it became clear that the scope of the work was greater than the pricing, the defendant instructed Reuven to "inflate" the price of the work from NIS 30,420 including VAT, to the sum of NIS 49,300 including VAT. All with the intention that Reuven would transfer financial benefits to the defendant following the inflated prices. After receiving payment for the project, Reuven transferred the sum of approximately NIS 15,000 in cash to the defendant. According to Reuven's testimony, the operation was carried out in the framework of each of the three relevant charges (as well as in other cases), sometimes outside the IPS commission in Ramle and sometimes in a random place in the middle of the road. I do not see any importance in the question of where the transfer was carried out on each and every charge.
The accuser also succeeded in proving that Reuven acted as described above due to the relationship of dependence and control between him and the defendant, and out of a desire that in exchange for the money, the defendant would allow him to continue his employment as a subcontractor in the IPS.
- Compliance with the Elements of the Offense of Bribery:
In the first charge, as well as in Charges 2 and 3 below, the defendant's argument is that Reuven did not transfer money to him at all, and therefore the factual element of the offense of bribery (and of the offense of theft by a public servant does not exist in our case). However, as I have noted, my conclusion is that Reuven transferred the money to the defendant, at the defendant's request and in order to ensure his continued employment as a subcontractor in the IPS. The defendant, a public servant, received from Reuven the sum of approximately NIS 15,000, at the defendant's demand and in order to ensure his continued employment in the future as a subcontractor of the IPS. In this way, the three components of the factual element of the offense of taking bribes are fulfilled.