It should be noted that the defendants were represented at the beginning of the proceeding by Adv. Meir Ehrenfeld and Adv. Ofer Rachmani. On September 30, 2021, a notice was received that Adv. Uriel Hur Nizri would replace Adv. Rahmani, and on November 24, 2021, Adv. Nizri remained as the sole defense attorney in the case.
- The structure of the verdict – I will first describe the general part of the indictment and the response to it. I will then discuss each charge separately, from the indictment to the hearing and decision. Some of the defense's general arguments will be discussed immediately after the first charge and before the hearing of the second charge.
The general part of the indictment
- On the dates specified in the indictment, the defendant served in the Prison Service (hereinafter: "the IPS") as a construction officer for the Central District. By virtue of his position and the provisions of the law, the defendant served as a public servant.
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916As part of his position, the defendant was responsible for construction and maintenance in the Central District of the IPS, and he was required to supervise the contractors' work in accordance with the building plans and approve the execution of the projects, to issue instructions for opening work orders in the Merkava system, and finally to approve the payment for their execution, in exchange for the presentation of tax invoices that were sent to him by the contractors.
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
- The IPS work procedure stipulated that the contractors who won a IPS tender (hereinafter: "the main contractor") could transfer the execution of the work to another contractor who would carry out the work in place of the main contractor (hereinafter: "subcontractor"). The main contractor was entitled to charge for the conversion of the work to the subcontractor approximately 12% of the cost of the project and the work performed by the subcontractor (hereinafter: "conversion payment to the main contractor").
- The method of making a payment to a main contractor is such that a main contractor would submit tax invoices on his behalf to the IPS accounts, and in return receive a bank transfer to the main contractor's bank account. If the main contractor transferred the project to a subcontractor, then the main contractor would receive a tax invoice from the subcontractor, transfer the payment by check to the subcontractor, usually when the check was due in the future (hereinafter: "payment check to the subcontractor") and at the same time submit a tax invoice on his behalf to the IPS accounts for the purpose of receiving payment from the IPS by bank transfer.
- In order to prepare a pricing for the execution of work in the IPS, the executing contractor would come to the IPS facility and prepare an estimate for the performance of the work (hereinafter: "the pricing of the work"), which was approved, inter alia, by the District Construction Officer of that IPS facility.
- During the period relevant to the indictment, the defendant influenced, when he wished, the amount of the redeployment payment to the main contractor, and thus affected the profit that the main contractor would receive from the execution of projects that were converted to subcontractors. In addition, as part of the defendant's position in the IPS, the main contractors were in a dependent relationship with the defendant, in light of the fact that the defendant supervised their work, approved payment for their work, assisted in supervising the subcontractors on their behalf, and could, if he wished, pose significant difficulties to them in their work with the IPS.
- Copied from NevoDuring the relevant period, the defendant instituted a work method by which he established his control over the identity of the performers of the work, while creating the dependence of the subcontractors on the defendant, inter alia, as will be detailed below:
- The defendant dictated to the main contractors the identity of the subcontractor who would carry out the work that was converted by the main contractors into subcontractors, so that in practice the defendant chose the identity of the subcontractor who would carry out the work at the IPS, and as a result, that subcontractor would receive the work from the IPS through the main contractor.
- The defendant sometimes dictated to the main and secondary contractors the pricing of the work, excessively, and in a manner that did not reflect the true nature and cost of the work (hereinafter: "inflating the price quote"), in order to enable additional profit for the contractors, even himself.
- In some cases, the defendant used to receive the payment check to the subcontractor in order to transfer it himself to the subcontractors. In this way, the defendant ensured his control over the subcontractors.
- On many occasions, which will be detailed in the indictment, the defendant used to receive sums of money and financial benefits in connection with the fulfillment of his duties as a public servant in the IPS. The defendant used to ask the subcontractors to increase the sums of the work offers, and to reap a financial commission in his pocket, as well as to perform private work in his home, some of which he paid from the IPS budgets.
- It was also noted in the general part of the indictment that the offense of bribery and the offense of theft by a public servant are offenses listed in the first appendix to the Prohibition of Money Laundering Law, 5760-2000 (hereinafter: "Source Offenses"). All property that originates, directly or indirectly, from source offenses is prohibited property, and hence all the money and various benefits derived from these offenses are prohibited property (hereinafter: "prohibited property").
The General Response to the Indictment and the General Part of the Indictment
- In the general response to the indictment, dated July 12, 2021, it was noted that the defendant served for 25 years as a senior construction officer in the IPS, until the date of his retirement, about a year and a half after the date of his response. The defendant was certified abroad in 1993 as a civil engineer, and in Israel the defendant has been registered in the Register of Architects and Engineers since 2001. Over the years, as part of his role as a district construction officer in the IPS, the defendant was involved in many dozens of IPS projects, both as a work manager and project manager, as well as in the planning and financial support of many projects at a cost of millions of shekels. The defendant was highly regarded by the IPS command officials.
- The acquaintance between the defendant and the contractors involved in the affair is against the background of the defendant's work, and there was never any relationship between them regarding bribery. It was further claimed that all the projects that the defendant was entrusted with by virtue of his position in the IPS were subject to the supervision and approval of the IPS officials in charge of approving and financing the projects.
- With regard to the general part of the indictment, the defendant denied that he acted unlawfully, with respect to the IPS regulation in the establishment and management of the projects that he was entrusted with by virtue of his position. The defendant claimed that the approval and financing of the projects were done by the IPS professionals, without his involvement, based on bills of quantities submitted by those contractors and based on the IPS's "tender book", which defines the sums that appeared in the bids submitted by the contractors.
- The defendant denied the claim that he dictated to the main contractors the identity of the subcontractors. The defendant also denied the claim that he used to dictate the pricing of the work to the main and secondary contractors in a manner that did not reflect the work performed by the contractors, with the aim of enabling additional profit for the contractors and for himself. The defendant also denied the allegations that he made a financial profit and financial benefits in connection with the performance of his position.
The defendant's arguments regarding the general part of the indictment will be discussed immediately after the hearing of the first charge.