The mental element of the offense (awareness of all the components of the factual element of the offense) also exists, as emerges from the totality of the circumstances of the case. As was determined in the case law regarding the difficulty in proving the element of "in favor" (giving the death in exchange for performing an action related to his position) and his awareness of it, the defendant must be placed on the presumption that he knew that Reuven was not giving him gifts except in order to show him kindness in the performance of his duties. The defendant did not attempt at all to provide an alternative explanation for the granting of the benefits, since his version is a complete denial of receiving a benefit from Reuven and others mentioned in the indictment. In the absence of an alternative explanation for the granting of the benefit, the presumption against the defendant is not contradicted, and the mental element exists. Since the defendant denied receiving any benefit even in relation to additional charges, this is also true with respect to those charges.
In its summaries, the defense reviewed the sections of the law relating to the offense of bribery as well as various rulings relating to this offense, and at the end of its review it argued that in the defendant's case, "the elements of bribery and the elements of the other offenses attributed to the defendants together and/or separately were not met." This is in relation to all the charges, without any specific reasons, and it can even be seen that the claim relates not only to the offense of bribery, but also to all the offenses that are the subject of the indictment.
The defense further argued that the conviction of the bribe-giver does not obligate the conviction of the defendant as the recipient of the bribe, but the conviction of the defendant as a bribe recipient is based on solid evidentiary basis, which includes not only the testimony of his accomplice, but also additional evidence as described above (see in this regard the telephone conversations between the defendant and Reuven).
- Existence of the elements of the offense of theft by a public servant:
Further to my conclusions above, the accuser proved that the defendant took and bore from the state, without its consent, fraudulently and without claiming a right in good faith, with the intention of denying a permanent revocation, the sum of NIS 15,000. It must also be determined that there is a mental element of criminal thought – awareness of all the factual elements of the offense, as well as a special intention of the defendant "to deprive his husband of the matter of permanent denial".