In the absence of agreement regarding the admissibility of the affidavits, and when the content of the statements is disputed, it is not possible to base conclusions on what is stated in these affidavits.
In view of all of the above, I cannot accept the defense's argument that three units in the motel were transferred for several years for the use of the association free of charge.
- Time after time, when unreported rental income was discovered during the defendant's cross-examination, the defendant placed the responsibility for this on CPA Dotan. The defendant's version was that he had reported all of his income to the accountant. The defendant also raised this claim. On the other hand, CPA Dotan testified that the defendants told him that the activity of renting the units in the motel had ceased and that income from the house had not been brought to his attention. He did not instruct the defendants to report only profits and did not tell them that rental income is exempt from reporting – every report he received from the defendants was reported further to the authorities. It can be seen that CPA Dotan, who was brought as a defense witness, contradicted the defendants' main argument that the responsibility for the failure to report lies with him and not with them. His testimony was pertinent and unequivocal, and the defense did not show any reason not to accept it. Thus, no reason arose for which the accountant should refrain from reporting income that was brought to his attention. The testimony of CPA Dotan is reliable to me.
- In the opinion of CPA Damati, which was submitted on behalf of the defense, there is a reference to the deposit of funds in the defendants' accounts as well as the use made of the five units in the motel during the years 2014-2018. In this opinion, CPA Damati relied on documents that the defendant gave him and on the defendant's statements. As for the documents, with the exception of Amsalo Ababa's affidavit, these are unverified affidavits (most of which are translated from Russian into Hebrew by a notary), which were given by individuals who did not testify in court.
Hence, it is not possible to base conclusions on what is stated in these documents. It should also be noted that CPA Damati did not refer to the reports prepared by CPA Dotan and bank statements in the matter of the defendants, and no relevant investigative materials were brought before him (wiretaps, police interrogations and the defendant's diary). It can be summarized and said that the information on which CPA's opinion was based is very partial and as such conclusions cannot be based on it.
- In addition, the conclusions of CPA Damati regarding the transfers of money to the defendants raise question marks. In the confirmation regarding the money from the sale of the apartment of the defendant's mother (P/7, Appendix 7), it was not stated that the funds were transferred to the defendant or when the transfer was made. As for the transfer of a gift of 28,000 euros to the defendant, the certificate (P/7, Appendix 8) did not state that it was a gift, but rather a permit to manage these funds. Similarly, in the confirmation regarding the purchase of the earrings (P/7, Appendix 10), the name of the defendant was not mentioned at all. With regard to income from the sale of vehicles, the opinion determined that the income from the sale of vehicles amounted to NIS 150,000, out of which an amount of NIS 125,000 was received by bank transfer (and not in cash). Due to the manner in which the money was transferred (which is consistent with what was stated in the testimony of Moti Zehavi), the sale of the vehicle does not explain the deposit of cash in the defendants' accounts. It therefore appears that the opinion of CPA Damati does not provide a legitimate explanation for the cash deposits in the defendants' accounts.
- I will note that even in the testimonies of the defendants regarding the cash deposits in the bank accounts, there is no legitimate explanation for these deposits. In his testimony, the defendant mentioned a person who transferred money to him from the sale of his mother's apartment in Russia, but as has already been stated above, this is not supported by evidence, and even according to the defendant, the same person came to Israel once every three or four years and brought him only ₪10,000-20,000 each visit. The other explanations raised by the defendant in his testimony (including the sale of his mother's Amidar apartment, electrical appliances and a clock) were also not supported by evidence. The statements of the two defendants regarding the receipt of cash from the sale of cars or vehicles were contradicted by Investigator Zehavi as well as by the defense witness, CPA Damati, whose opinion indicates that only NIS 25,000 was received in cash for the sale of vehicles.
- As for the income from the motel, according to CPA Damati's opinion, between the years 2015-2018 only paid units were rented in 2015, and in 2017 four (!) of the five units were used for medical purposes (according to the details, two units were given to the association, another two were rented free of charge for individuals who came for medical treatments, and one unit was used by the family intermittently). This description of minimal income from the motel from 2015 only, which is based on the defendant's declarations and the documents he provided to CPA Dotan, is already concealed above.
It is important to note that the defense witness, CPA Damati, confirmed that all income must be reported, even if it is exempt income, and also confirmed that there is no exemption for bribe income.