"Awareness of the circumstantial element – in our case, awareness of the existence of tax liability – and the special intention (hereinafter these two will be called – criminal intent) can be proved in reliance on all the circumstances. As in other cases in which proof of criminal intent on the part of the defendant is required, there is difficulty in proving this element when the defendant himself does not admit its existence. Therefore, this intention is usually proven by circumstantial evidence. In certain circumstances, the act and manner of a certain conduct will indicate the existence of the criminal intent, and in other cases, the entire circumstances of the case may indicate this. If we return to our case, when the circumstances point in the direction of an unequivocal conclusion as to the existence of criminal intent, and there is no other reasonable explanation for those circumstances, the obvious conclusion is that such an intention was fulfilled. Sometimes, the very omission of income from income reports submitted by a taxpayer will indicate the existence of an intention to evade payment of tax, when there is no other reasonable explanation for this omission. For example, if a person declares an income of a certain amount when his income is higher according to his books, the conclusion of an intention to evade tax is learned from the act itself, without any other reasonable explanation (compare: Criminal Appeal 502/73 Schwartzberg v. State of Israel [13], at p. 206 and Criminal Appeal 143/73 State of Israel v. Seidel [14], at p. 26). On the other hand, failure to report income, even if the non-reporting is about income at a high rate and it continues for a long time, will not lead to such a conclusion, if the circumstances of the case show that the taxpayer honestly believed that he was not obligated to report that income did not apply to him."
In this regard, see also the case of Ohev Zion, in paragraph 25:
"Of course, proving the existence of the mental element of a purpose, which is required under section 220 of the Income Tax Ordinance, is the burden of the prosecution, as it is one of the main elements of the offense. However, due to the special nature of the offenses in the field of tax in particular, and the fiscal offenses in general, it is not possible in most cases to prove it except by the circumstances, the conduct and the external actions of the accused. In these cases, the circumstances, together with the conduct of the defendant, may lead to the conclusion that the intention to evade tax derives from the act itself..."