However, already from the list of rents prepared by the defendant and submitted on behalf of the defense (P/6, Appendix H, p. 236), a different picture emerges:
In 2015 - NIS 66,023 (vs. NIS 4,340 declared)
In 2016 - 11, 600 NIS (compared to 0 NIS declared)
In 2017 - NIS 21,000 (compared to NIS 33,000 declared)
In 2018 - 0 NIS (compared to 38,000 NIS that was declared)
According to the defendant himself, this is a list that was compiled at a later stage, after his arrest, and not in real time. According to other evidence, as described below, it does not constitute an exhaustive list. In addition, the list does not refer to the existence of five separate units (the table is divided by year of lease, period of lease, amount paid, and method of payment). However, according to the list, the defendant himself admits that in 2015 and 2016 the defendants had higher incomes than they declared.
I will note that it is puzzling how the defendant on the list, in relation to the years 2017 and 2018, noted smaller sums than was declared to the Tax Authority.
- From the testimonies of the defendants and from the additional evidence described above, a picture emerges of concealment of income from the motel.
The defendant claimed that they did not rent out units in the motel in 2018, but later retracted his statement and later claimed that there was no short-term rental in that year. The defendant explained that the short-term rental took place only during the period of the hotel's operation under N.K. Building (i.e., until March 1, 2017 - M.B.).
In addition to the fact that the report submitted by the defendants to the Tax Authority indicates the existence of certain income in 2018, the aforementioned wiretaps, all of which date back to 2018, include many conversations on the subject of paid rental of units in a short-term motel (as well as a number of conversations regarding long-term rental). These conversations also include a reference by the two defendants to the fact that there is a high demand and full occupancy, and even a statement by the defendant that there is a need to purchase an additional villa – a statement that indicates the great demand. In his testimony, when confronted with the wiretaps, the defendant initially claimed that he did not recall that there had been talks regarding a short lease, and later it was evident that he tried to minimize as much as possible the picture that emerges from the conversations, with various claims: even when there was demand, the units were not always rented; Many people are interested (and even sign a contract) but in the end do not show up; sometimes they sign a contract for a month and actually live only a week; the defendants did not want to rent to customers who were not families; renovation or pest control was carried out and they prevented rental (and not necessarily full occupancy); the defendant told potential customers that the motel was fully booked as part of her conduct as a businesswoman with sharp senses; the defendant set a high price in a conversation with a potential customer so as not to rent to that customer. These repeated attempts were not convincing. On the contrary. Certainly after the defendant initially claimed that there was no short-term rental at all during 2018.