Work Estimate: 4640 NIS (80 hours multiplied by 85 NIS per hour)
Payment for Crane 6,000 NIS
VAT 5, 039 NIS
Antitrust Subcontractor expenses per project: 36,487 NIS
Subcontractor profit 19, NIS 514 including VAT (16, NIS 678 excluding VAT)
Total: 56,000 NIS.
- In the interrogation on November 2, 2018, Reuven stated that he had transferred the sum of NIS 15,000 to the defendant for this project, in his previous interrogation he claimed that it was NIS 10,000, while in another interrogation he claimed that the sum he transferred to the defendant was NIS 20,000. The contradiction between the various versions indicates the witness's unreliability. It was also argued that it was illogical that Reuven transferred to the defendant the sum of NIS 20,000 "or any other amount", if his profit was NIS 16,678.
- The defense emphasized in its summaries that the defendant discovered that Reuven had falsely claimed that he had already prepared all the hiding places, at a stage when in fact Reuven had prepared only two hiding places. The defendant contacted the main contractor by telephone and informed him of the matter.
Charge 2 - Hearing
- Contrary to the defense's argument, I did not find multiple versions in Reuven's interrogations with the police regarding the amount of money he gave to the defendant in the second charge, and the amount stated was approximately NIS 20,000. Thus, in the interrogation on November 2, 2018, he stated that he had transferred NIS 20,000 to the defendant in cash (and later corrected that he had given him NIS 18,000 because he had deducted NIS 2,000 for the purpose of paying tax) (P/70, issue 2). In the interrogation on November 27, 2018, he reiterated that he had transferred NIS 20,000 to the defendant in cash (NIS 19,875 to be precise) (P/74, issue 5, paras. 95-98). In Reuven's interrogations with the police, there is no statement that he transferred the sum of NIS 10,000 or NIS 15,000 to the defendant in this project (the sum of NIS 15,000 was stated in the context of the ramp project in Hadarim Prison and the doors project in the Petah Tikva District Court – Charges 1 and 3). Indeed, in his testimony in court, Reuven gave a different version, according to which he transferred a lower sum to the defendant, about NIS 10,000, but in his interrogations with the police his version was uniform.
- In his testimony in court, Reuven did not retract the bribe's version, but claimed that the amount of the bribe was lower, after he remembered that there was an addition to the work for which he received an additional NIS 10,000-20,000 out of the total payment of NIS 56,000. At this point, his testimony in court was clearly different from his version in the police (and later, in the course of his testimony regarding the third charge, Reuven was declared a hostile witness). In his case, the three conditions for accepting a foreign statement are met under section 10a(a) of the Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971 (hereinafter: "the Evidence Ordinance"): the statement was proven at trial; the person who gave the statement is a witness in the trial and the parties were given an opportunity to cross-examine him, and the testimony differs from the statement in a substantive detail. I see fit to prefer the statement made by the police to Reuven's testimony in court in accordance with section 10a(c), because his claim in his testimony regarding the addition of the hiding places was raised with a considerable delay of three years, when in his interrogations with the police, in November-December 2018, shortly after the work was carried out (the project was conducted between July and October 2018), he did not mention any addition to the work at all.
In addition, his testimony in court that he was required to carry out a total of about 60 concealments is contradicted by the defendant's testimony that this was a work of 20 concealments. It should be added that throughout Reuven's testimony, it is clear that he was reluctant to entangle the defendant. As for the defense's claim that Reuven confessed to the police under duress, this claim was made casually. In addition, in his later interrogations Reuven was not arrested at all, but he continued to confess and incriminate himself and the defendant. In these circumstances, the claim of a confession under duress should be rejected.
- Even if some change in hiding places was required by IPS officials, which led to an increase in the cost of each hiding place to a price of about NIS 1,000 per unit, including VAT, the execution of 20 hiding places is consistent with the data according to which Reuven received a sum of NIS 56,000, including VAT, of which he transferred approximately NIS 20,000 to the defendant.
- Reuven sent to the defendant's mobile phone number a photocopy of the invoice that he issued to D.B.S. at the beginning of the project. Reuven explained in his testimony that he did this in order to receive a check, while the defendant testified that he did not know the reason for this. Later in his remarks, he suggested that this was done to show that Reuven had completed the work, but the invoice was sent at the beginning of the project, on July 19, 2018, and not on or near the date of completion of the work. In these circumstances, when the defendant cannot point to any other possible explanation, I accept Reuven's statement regarding the reason why he forwarded the invoice to the defendant. The transfer of the invoice establishes what is stated in the general part of the indictment, according to which in certain cases the defendant used to receive the payment check to the subcontractor in order to transfer it himself to the subcontractors, and thus the defendant ensured his control over the subcontractors.
- The defendant claimed in his testimony that he was not an entity that provided Reuven with work, but this contradicts his statement that Tavorinsky asked him for a recommendation of a local contractor to serve as a subcontractor on the project. It is evident that the defendant was reluctant to admit that he was the one who "arranged" Reuven for the work, and this was reflected in the statement that at that time Reuven was "walking between his legs".
The defendant's statements later in his testimony, that the main contractor insisted that the defendant was the one who brought Reuven (when the defendant came to him to complain about Reuven) speak for themselves. I got the impression that the defendant did indeed seek to dwarf his part in the matter, but the bottom line is that the defendant played a central role in the fact that Reuven served as a subcontractor in the project. This establishes what was stated in the general part of the indictment as well as in indictment 2 itself, according to which the defendant had a relationship of dependence and control over the subcontractors.
- In the two telephone conversations dated October 3, 2018 and October 8, 2018, the defendant was interested in paying a check, with both Reuven and the defendant confirming in their testimonies that it was a check P/60 that Reuven received in respect of the project that is the subject of this indictment. Reuven testified that the reason for the interest was the money that Reuven was supposed to transfer to the defendant after the check was repayed, while the defendant denied this, and claimed for another reason – Reuven's complaints regarding the lack of money for the purchase of raw material for the project. However, such a complaint on the part of Reuven and the defendant's advice that Reuven detail the check for the purpose of the purchase, is not mentioned in the recorded conversations, and Reuven was not asked to address the defendant's claim in his testimony. In the absence of any basis, I reject the defendant's version in this matter.
- I see no reason to accept the defendant's argument that Reuven had no motivation to transfer money to him after the defendant complained about it to the main contractor. Beyond the fact that the subject of the complaint before the main contractor did not come up in Reuven's cross-examination and was not even verified by the main contractor who testified in the case, Reuven's motivation for transferring the sums of money was rooted in the fact that the defendant was the one who arranged work for him, even if the defendant complained about him during a certain project.
- The defendant claimed that it was illogical that Reuven transferred him NIS 20,000 "or any other amount" from the payment he received for the project. In his testimony, he first claimed that Reuven had lost money in the project, later he claimed that Reuven earned only NIS 13,500 from the project, and in the defense summaries it was claimed that Reuven had submitted an account statement according to which his profit was about NIS 19,500, including VAT.
The multiplicity of versions and the lack of evidentiary support for the defendant's claims lead to the conclusion that the claim should be rejected. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that Reuven himself was convicted and punished for the transfers of funds to the defendant, of which he confessed.
- The existence of the elements of the offense of taking a bribe and the offense of theft by a public servant: In this indictment as well, the defendant's argument is that Reuven did not transfer money to him at all, and therefore in our case there is no factual element of the offense of bribery and of the offense of theft by the public servant. However, the accuser succeeded in showing and proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Reuven transferred the money, approximately NIS 20,000 in cash, out of the NIS 56,000 that was paid to him in the project, at the defendant's request and in order to ensure his continued employment as a subcontractor in the IPS. Beyond that, I will turn to the above discussion regarding the existence of the elements of the two offenses in the first charge.
I therefore convict the defendant of the charges against him in Charge 2.