The Defendant's Testimony
Main Investigation (Transcript of November 24, 2022)
- Together with a locksmith from the IPS, the defendant created an example of a hiding place for the window, which the prison director approved, even before the order was opened. This was a project of 20 hiding places, which had to be prepared, galvanized, painted and assembled (pp. 533-534, 545). The defendant inquired with the IPS who was the next main contractor, and it was D.B.S. Taburinsky. Tavorinsky asked the defendant to recommend a local contractor as a subcontractor, and at the same time Reuven "walked between his legs", as the defendant put it. Reuven gave a price quote and met with the main contractor. A contract was signed according to which the IPS would pay an additional 12% to the main contractor, and the order was launched (pp. 533-535).
- After Reuven carried out the hideouts, the district commander decided that the hiding place was too close to the wall and that the hiding legs needed to be widened. Under these circumstances, the defendant went to Reuven's metalworking shop near his office, where one of the workers told him that they had not yet begun to carry out the hiding places, while Reuven told him that he had already made the hiding places and would now have to change them. The defendant called the main contractor and told him that he could not work with Reuven in this way, but the main contractor insisted that the defendant was the one who brought Reuven, and that Reuven had to finish the project. The defendant stated in his testimony that he had detailed the matter in order to show that Reuven had no motivation to transfer money to him. He also noted that there were many problematic things that Reuven did not take into account, for example, the need for a special crane. However, the defendant tried to save money and made use of the IPS's leverage (535-536).
- Reuven lost money in this project and did not make a profit, and therefore why should he transfer money to the defendant? (p. 546). The defendant further stated that based on the price of the raw material, Reuven earned NIS 13,508 including VAT in the project, and for this reason the claim that he transferred NIS 20,000 to the defendant is illogical (p. 549).
- The defendant is not an entity that provides Reuven with work (p. 550). The two had arguments in every project (p. 547). Only in the Savyon Yard project in Neve Tirza Prison (which is not part of the indictment) did he lose control when he was angry with Reuven, because there were illegal things in that project (p. 547).
Cross-examination (transcript of February 20, 2023)
- When asked why Reuven sent him a photocopy of Reuven Latvorinsky's invoice No. 3182 dated July 19, 2018 for the sum of NIS 56,000 (P/59), the defendant replied that he did not know the reason for this (p. 561). The defendant confirmed that in this project as well, he was the one who approached Reuven to carry out the work and recommended it to the main contractor, Tavorinsky (p. 561). Even when the defendant was told that Reuven testified that this was an incident of bribery and therefore sent the invoice to the defendant, the defendant reiterated that he did not know why Reuven had sent him the invoice and that he was about to invite experts to testify that this was not an incident of bribery (p. 562).
The defendant suggested another possibility: it is possible that Reuven sent the invoice in order to show that he had finished the work, after there was a certain dispute on the claim that Reuven had not carried out his duties (p. 562).
- The plaintiff referred the defendant to exhibit P/60 - a copy of Tavorinsky's check to Reuven's Metalworking Workshop to cover invoice 3182 (Ayalon Shutters) in the amount of NIS 56,000 and due date of October 15, 2018, and to conversation No. 5489 of October 3, 2018, in which the defendant asked Reuven if he had succeeded in breaking the check. The defendant confirmed in his testimony that this was a conversation about the check in exhibit P/60 (p. 563). The prosecutor noted that Reuven stated in his testimony that the defendant pressured him to tear out the check because he wanted to receive bribes from Reuven in cash. The defendant denied this, adding that the context was that Reuven complained that he had no money to buy material, and then the defendant told him to break down the check and buy material. The defendant insisted on this answer even when he was accused that there was no mention of the purchase of material in the conversation (p. 564).
Charge 2 - The accuser's summaries
- Reuven's version at the police shortly after the incident was more accurate, and in his main interrogation he even asked the accusing attorney to refresh his memory. In his testimony in court, Reuven did indeed reduce the amount of bribe he had given to the defendant, but he did not retract the bribe by giving it. Reuven's desire to claim that he paid less bribes, with the innocence that he "remembered" about it three years after his interrogation by the police, was illogical. This was especially true after he also confessed at his own trial and after he opened his testimony in this court regarding Charge 2, with a request to refresh his memory. Reuven's attempts to claim pressure in his interrogation at the police were relentless, and in his later interrogations he was not in custody at all, and only continued to confess and incriminate himself and the accused.
In these circumstances, there is room to give preference to his statements to the police in real time and to adopt them in accordance with section 10a(c) of the Evidence Ordinance.
- The defendant minimized his part in bringing Reuven to perform the work and claimed that he had only "recommended" Reuven to Tavorinsky. He was interested in whether Reuven had succeeded in breaking the check because he demanded that part of the money be transferred to him. His version that he was interested in cashing the check because Reuven should have purchased materials contradicts Reuven's testimony, and in the conversation itself there was no mention of the purchase of materials at any stage.
Charge 2 - Defense Summaries
- In July 2018, an order was issued for the project, in accordance with IPS procedures. Prior to the issuance of the order, the defendant carried out a price estimate for the project in the amount of NIS 69,949 including VAT, in accordance with IPS procedures, and the order was issued according to this financial estimate. The subcontractor, Reuven, was chosen by the main contractor – D.B.S. In its summaries, the defense laid out the details of the account that Reuven submitted to D.B.S. (However, it is important to note this, without referring to any exhibit):
Raw material evaluation - 20,545 NIS