The Prosecution Case
Reuven's testimony
Main Investigation and Announcement of a Hostile Witness (Transcript of July 19, 2021)
- Reuven was invited to carry out the work by the defendant, and the defendant was the one who told him the amount and the name of the contractor that he had to write on the invoice. The witness received checks from the main contractor, Mahalab Development and Construction Ltd. (hereinafter: "Mahlab") and knew some of his work managers (p. 347). Reuven worked with the defendant as well as with a person named Pinchas, the contractor's representative (p. 348). To the claim that he did not mention Pinchas in his interrogations with the police, Reuven replied that it might have been another person (p. 349).
- Reuven confirmed that according to Exhibit A/63, the tax invoice he issued on April 23, 2017 to the dairy company for NIS 46, 900, was the work of 13 doors. The tax invoice was issued at the end of the work, but in practice it is possible that he performed additional doors (p. 346). I will note that the distribution of the sum appearing in Exhibit P/63 resulted in the price per door being NIS 3,607 including VAT. However, in accordance with Exhibit P/62, a document dated November 2, 2018 that Reuven wrote in his own handwriting when he was interrogated by the police, the price for the door was approximately NIS 1,800 (not including VAT).
- Reuven testified that he did not remember the entire cost of the work. According to his interrogation with the police on November 4, 2018 (paras. 88-89), this was a sum of approximately NIS 27,000, including VAT. This was when the tax invoice P/63 that he issued showed a sum of NIS 46,900, including VAT. Reuven testified that although there was "a small part that I transferred to him", in the end there were more doors. Reuven also insisted on this when the plaintiff emphasized that the tax invoice P/63 states "13 doors" (p. 350). To the argument that Reuven himself stated that the tax invoice was issued at the end of the work, the witness replied that at the 90th minute, after the end of the work and before he wrote the invoice, the director of the detention center wanted additional doors, and he referred them to the defendant so that he could decide on the matter. To the claim that this did not appear in the invoice and was not mentioned in the course of his interrogation by the police, he replied that he had noted to the police that there were additional doors connected to this invoice (p. 352).
- At this stage, the prosecutor sought to declare Reuven a hostile witness, after the witness added, after more than 3 years, points that did not arise in his police interrogation in which he was trying to minimize or change his version. Reuven was declared a hostile witness, and the prosecution's continued interrogation was carried out in a cross-examination (p. 353). The witness's statements to the police and at his trial were submitted to the court file (P/67-T/75).
- Later in his testimony, Reuven stated that the director of the detention center told him to speak with the defendant, and the defendant instructed him to prepare the additional doors and that the defendant would pay for them. They issued a larger invoice and did not record the addition of the doors in the invoice (apparently referring to Exhibit P/63 (p. 356)).
- Exhibit P/65 includes the IPS order for frame number 4501352856 dated January 30, 2017, in honor of Mahlab, for the manufacture and installation of security doors in the Petah Tikva District Court, in the amount of 56,980.77 including VAT. Exhibit P/65 also includes Mahlab's contract, in which a quantity of 13 doors was stated. The prosecutor accused Reuven that in the budgetary framework of this proposal, no additional doors were included, and Reuven did not mention the addition of doors in his interrogation with the police in the context of exhibit P/65 (p. 357). Reuven replied that there was a similar case in the matter of hiding places (Charge 2), where hiding places were added towards the end of the work (p. 359). Reuven does not remember from whom he received the payment for the work on the doors at the Petah Tikva District Court in April 2017 (p. 368).
- Reuven confirmed that he had transferred NIS 15,000 in cash to the defendant as part of the Petah Tikva Doors Project. Prior to that, he had tried to claim that he had transferred a smaller sum to the defendant and that he had been confused during the interrogation and had been influenced by harsh conditions of detention (cockroaches that roamed around him all night), but the prosecutor reminded him that he had been released from detention and in most of his interrogations he had not been arrested (pp. 360-361, 363). Later in his testimony, he again claimed that he had transferred a lower sum to the defendant for this project, possibly NIS 5,000 (p. 368). He was reminded that he had confessed to the police and at his trial that he had transferred NIS 15,000 to the defendant. To the question of whether he had lied in his trial, he answered in the negative, but noted that there were things that he remembered now, at a later stage (p. 369).
- Exhibit P/64 is a document of the Reuven Metalsmithing Company dated September 18, 2017, 5 months after the issuance of the invoice P/63, which is addressed to the defendant and sent to him via WhatsApp. The document includes a price quote for additional doors (as noted in the document: "As has already been done in more than ten (sic) doors (so in the original – M. B) doors"), at a cost of 2000 before VAT, 2340 including VAT.
- The witness was referred to the fact that he was asked during the police interrogation why he offered a price of NIS 1,800 before VAT for 13 doors, while six months later, in September, he offered NIS 2,000 before VAT. The witness replied that he had raised prices and that they might also have asked for a different type of insulation, but when he was referred to the explanation he had given the police, that he had priced higher for the work of two doors (a small amount), he confirmed this (p. 365).
- Exhibit P/66 is a document that was photocopied from Reuven's mobile phone. This is a price quote dated September 26, 2017 for two additional doors, at a total price of NIS 7,000 including VAT. To the claim that in an 8-day gap between P/64 and P/66, he raised the price from NIS 2,340 per unit including VAT, to NIS 3,500 per unit including VAT, he replied that the defendant asked for different sealing and insulation, as well as a special closure for these doors. To the argument that it was P/66 with the same text as in P/64 and that the difference was only in price, and that Reuven did not mention in the police interrogation that the defendant had asked for something else regarding the two additional doors, Reuven replied that he did not know if he had been asked about this matter (pp. 366-368).
Cross-examination (by the defense attorney) (transcript of October 7, 2021)
- Reuven was asked to upgrade his initial offer, and therefore his offer became more expensive (pp. 380). At first he was asked to install 13 doors, and the first price quote was NIS 1,800 for a door excluding VAT (p. 394). Afterwards, he received special demands from the defendant regarding different sealing, different rubber bands and the addition of a glass door, which led to an increase in the cost to NIS 2,844, including VAT (pp. 394-395). In the end, there were also two additional doors (pp. 396). On the fact that this was inconsistent with his claim that the defendant instructed him to increase the price from NIS 27,000 to NIS 46,900, he replied that there was probably a smaller number of doors in the first stage, and when he was asked to make additional doors, the price went up (pp. 396-397). When it was argued that the witness's statements indicated that there was no inflation, but rather an upgrade of doors and the addition of doors, Reuven insisted that there was an inflated price (p. 399).
- According to the defense attorney's argument that Reuven's version regarding the sum he gave to the defendant was inconsistent (according to the argument, in the interrogation on November 4, 2018, the sum of NIS 15,000 was mentioned, in the interrogation on November 27, 2018, the sum of NIS 10,000, and in the main interrogation less than NIS 5,000), the witness replied that the door project was an ongoing project, there was an initial order, and then the number of doors was changed, and therefore it is possible that there were a number of occasions (two or three) in which he transferred money to the defendant in this project (pp. 401-402). To the question of why he did not mention this earlier, in the police or in his testimony, he replied , "If they asked me about one, I answered one" (p. 402).
- To the question of whether police officers spoke to him outside the interrogation room about the interrogation, since watching the discs indicates that he went on breaks and when he returned to the interrogation room remembered what he had said or changed his version, Reuven replied in the negative (p. 402). The witness denied the claim that he tried to please the interrogators or was afraid of them. He told the truth and no one pressured him. As he put it: "This matter that I gave him money is clear and clear, I did give it to him. Regarding sums I may be wrong, I don't remember everything, I don't write down everything exactly how much I transferred to him..." (pp. 403-404).
The Haganah Affair