The defendant deposited funds originating from offenses of origin in bank accounts containing other funds. This indicates the existence of an intention to conceal, and therefore the mental element of the offense of money laundering exists in his case under section 3(a) of the Prohibition of Money Laundering Law.
- As for the defense's arguments, for the purpose of conviction on this charge, there is no need for an economic opinion, and the settlement in the civil proceeding is not relevant at all.
- In view of all of the above, I hold that the accuser has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense of money laundering under section 3(a) of the Prohibition of Money Laundering Law, by mixing and depositing the funds originating from bribery and theft offenses by a public servant in his bank accounts, together with other funds, in a total amount of NIS 410,446.
Additional General Arguments of the Defendant
- The defendant's general claims regarding the "inflation mechanism" and the lack of influence on the profit of the main contractors and the selection of subcontractors were discussed above. In the course of his testimony, the defendant raised additional allegations, regarding "sewing files" and the manner in which the police treated him during his arrest.
Although in the defense summaries the reference to the claim of tailoring the files is very limited, and there is almost no reference to the claim regarding the treatment that the defendant received from the Israel Police, I deem it appropriate, for the sake of completeness, to briefly present the relevant evidence in these matters as well.
The prosecution's evidence
Maj. Arik Marciano (Transcript of 18.10.2022)
Main Inquiry
- He has served in the police for about 15 years, seven of which have been an interrogator in the Prison Guards' Investigation Unit. The investigation into this affair (known as the "silver cage") began in the first months of 2017, as an undercover investigation. A report came from a doctor, an IPS officer named Nina, who reported a conversation she had with the defendant (the defendant's wife). The doctor told of a dispute between the defendant and his wife and that his wife knew many incriminating things. The doctor and the defendant were summoned to the unit, but the defendant denied the existence of the conversation with the doctor and did not cooperate. The undercover investigation continued, and a few months later, several reports were received by the IPS, completely separate. One was from the chain of command of Neve Tirza Prison, about an unusual incident that occurred during the construction of a large yard. The executing contractor expressed to a number of prison command officials that the defendant was very angry with him because he had offered a very low price quote, and that in the past he had paid the defendant money, checks, and was afraid of getting into trouble because of the defendant. Another report was received from Roni Kofi, a subcontractor in the IPS, mainly in the field of frameworks, that in exchange for receiving work in the IPS, the defendant explained to him a method that was in fact a 10% payment to the defendant for each work that Kofi receives. In addition, Kofi told about very large sums of private work that he performed for the defendant at home, for which the defendant promised to pay but did not pay, and said that the payment would be deducted from the work that Kofi would receive at the IPS. The reports were examined, and the undercover activity continued until the transition to an open investigation (pp. 377-387).
- Later, a special operations unit was opened with the Diamond Unit of the Tax Authority. As part of the undercover investigation, wiretapping orders were issued, among other things.
There was wiretapping of the defendant's mobile phone number, which was suspended for several months and renewed a month before the "break-in", and there was also another position on the phone of the defendant's wife, Natalia. As a result of the wiretaps, an unusual relationship arose between the defendant as a construction officer of the Central District with main and secondary contractors of the IPS. In addition, conversations were recorded regarding the villa that was divided into apartments for rent and other properties that they did not know about previously (pp. 387-388).
- The witness rejected the claim that, as the principal investigator in the case, he exerted pressure to get the contractors to distort the truth, and added that there was actually a tendency to sound her voice in this case. There were many things that raised alarm bells, but in the absence of additional support for the evidence, these lines of investigation were not continued. No pressure was exerted on the interrogees, the confessions are detailed and supported by external evidence (pp. 393-394).
- Regarding the protection of the defendant's rights, the witness replied that there were transcriptions and recordings of the interrogations. On the day of the arrest (November 1, 2018), the defendant threatened to throw the policeman from the roof to handcuff him, and therefore there was authority to use force against the defendant, but everything was conducted in a calm and peaceful manner, and the defendant's rights were explained (p. 394).
Cross-examination
- According to the defense attorney's claim that there was a very clear line of investigation to "catch" the defendant, the interrogator replied that they had been interrogated in advance on the assumption that it was possible that the names of other people from within the IPS would also be revealed to be involved, but in practice no other names were discovered as aforesaid (p. 404).
Exhibits
- Exhibits regarding the date of the defendant's arrest, November 1, 2018: P/156 (action report by Inspector Gideon Newman-Solish), P/159 (action/seizure and marking report by Sgt. Tal Ben Arush) and P/163 (action and questioning report by Sgt. Marciano). It should be noted that the defense waived the testimony of Inspector Newman-Solish and Sgt. Ben Arush, and thus did not dispute what was stated in the exhibits they edited aforementioned (it should be noted that in Marciano's cross-examination, no specific allegations were raised in relation to exhibit P/163 that he edited).
In accordance with what is stated in exhibits P/156 and P/163, the police did not break into the defendant's home, but rather the policemen knocked on the door while wearing police identification hats and identifying themselves as police. It was also noted that the defendant was asked to stop talking to the defendant in Russian, and when he did not do so, he was told that he would be arrested. In response, the defendant said: "Who are you to arrest me? I will throw you off the balcony," and as a result, the defendant was arrested and handcuffed. Later, at the defendant's request, and when the defendant calmed down, the handcuffs were removed from the defendant.