Criminal Case (Center) 6040-07-20 State of Israel v. Arkadi Shkovitzky - part 30

The Prosecution Case

Testimony of Aharon (Arik) Shaked (transcript of November 24, 2021)

Main investigation (combined with prosecution exhibits, including wiretapping)

182. An indictment was filed against Arik for his part in the affair (criminal case 44510-05-20), and he was sentenced to 9 months of community service and a fine of NIS 300,000 (p. 417). Arik worked with the IPS for about 25 years, in the work of sealing buildings. Arik had a framework contract and a price list with the IPS, which he signed as part of a tender. As part of the price list, the contractor committed to a certain price for a certain work. Whenever there was work to be done, the witness gave an estimate and received an order, according to the framework contract and the price list that he signed. Arik worked with the defendant (pp. 417-418).
183. Arik stated that he did not feel comfortable in the testimony. I got the impression that he testified reluctantly. According to his testimony, since the beginning of the work with the defendant, he used to send the defendant an estimate and the defendant asked him to add a "drop" to the estimate. The defendant told him that he wanted 10 percent for the work that he (the defendant) was transferring to him. Arik tried to object to the matter, but in the end he agreed. When asked how many projects had happened, he replied that he did not remember, but that there were calculations about everything. He had no choice but to cooperate with the defendant, because he wanted to continue working with him and work in the IPS (p. 420). He does not know what would have happened if he had refused, but noted that he did not want to get into a situation of bad relations with the defendant and that the defendant would try to thwart him in his work (p. 421). The defendant served as a construction officer and also as a supervisor, and he also gave some of the work, and Arik did not want to come into a confrontation with him, for fear that the defendant would say that he was not a good contractor (p. 421).

In some of the cases in which the defendant asked him to inflate prices, he told him that he had no cash and that both of them might get into trouble, but his attempts were in vain (421). Arik testified about himself as someone who worked in the various districts for many years, his good name preceded him, and he was severely harmed in the course of the affair (p. 421).

184. Exhibit P/76 is the report of the unloading of Arik's mobile phone, dated November 14, 2018. On May 22, 2017, Arik wrote to the defendant , "Thank you. On Sunday we will meet for everything" (Notice No. 5), and about a minute later, he wrote in another message: "Orders and Accounts" (Notice No. 6). Arik testified that he also referred, inter alia, to the 10% that he was asked to add and transfer to the defendant (pp. 423-424).
185. Exhibit P/77 includes two budget estimates for a sealing project at Ayalon Prison, one dated November 1, 2017 and the other dated November 16, 2017. The items of the estimates are identical, but it can be seen that in the estimate of November 16, 2017, there is an addition of 10% to the total quantities (for example, instead of the quantity of 80 meters that appeared in the estimate of November 1, 2017, the estimate of November 16, 2017 showed a quantity of 88 meters). Arik testified that both estimates relate to the same project. He gave a budget estimate and then added 10% and sent approval and an amended proposal (p. 424).
186. In conversation No. 163 on January 24, 2018 at 15:51, Arik and the defendant discussed sealing work at the entrance complex to the Tel Aviv detention center. The defendant asked Arik to prepare a price quote of NIS 36,000 for him and send it to him as soon as possible. Arik asked, "Thirty-six... exactly or to do something like that?" , and the defendant replied: "No, approximately... plus minus. And... waterproofing... roof, entrance complex... Tel Aviv." Arik asked how many meters and the defendant replied that he did not know and "do what you think." Arik estimated in his testimony that the real cost was NIS 18,000 (p. 425).
187. In conversation No. 311 of January 29, 2018, Arik and the defendant also discussed the project at the Tel Aviv detention center, where the main contractor is D.B.S. Tavorinsky. In the past, Arik "chased" Tavorinsky until payment, and the defendant told Arik that he would first arrange a check and then Arik would carry out the work (p. 426).
188. On January 30, 2018, Arik sent the defendant on WhatsApp the invoice of Gomaitum for the Tel Aviv detention project (P/78 - the invoice, P/76 Notice No. 14 (A.M.4)). Arik sent the invoice to the defendant because the defendant asked to transfer it to Tvorinsky - the defendant was the contact between Arik and Tavorinsky (p. 427). In the next message (No. 15, dated January 30, 2018), Arik wrote to the defendant: "I [A] was in Nitzan Prison later and then I will bring you the original", referring to the original invoice that the defendant should forward to Tavorinsky (pp. 427-428).

In Statement No. 17, Arik wrote to the defendant, "Corrected estimates have been sent to you for fax." The witness explained that he had sent estimates, that he did not remember which project he had for, and that he should have added 10 percent, "because he transfers it to contracts... the sale and he issues orders"  (p. 428).

189. In conversation No. 889 of February 6, 2018, the defendant and Arik determined that Arik would come with his team to show them the work, and the defendant mentioned that the check was in his possession. The same check for approximately NIS 36,000 was discussed, from D.B.S. (p. 428). On February 6, 2018, the defendant sent Arik a photocopy of a check of D.B.S. NIS 35, NIS 932.78 for the Gomaitum Ordinance, due date March 26, 2018 (P/76 Notice No. 18, P/79 photocopy of the check). According to Arik, the defendant gave him a photocopy of the check so that he would be sure that he had the check with him and that he would come to work (p. 429).
190. To the question of how many jobs he had worked with the defendant in this method during the entire period, Arik replied that he did not remember (p. 429). The same applies to the number of times he changed bids under the direction of the defendant (p. 429). In Exhibit P/80 The first document is an appendix to Arik's interrogation dated November 4, 2018, and it contains a list of the projects to which he referred the police investigator (p. 430). To the question of why he inflated prices, he replied that it was a commission or a bribe, and that he personally benefited from it by "not being kicked out", as he put it. Arik did not profit financially from the matter (p. 430). He went on to note that due to his desire to continue working with the IPS, "out of all 100 percent, there are maybe 10 or 5 percent of the jobs that I have to give something and I have no choice, I have decided that I will give and that I will continue to work... In fact, he is the owner of the hundredth in this case, he has the opinion" (p. 442).
191. The defendant earned 10 percent. During the entire period, Arik transferred to the defendant about NIS 216,000. About NIS 70,000 of which was in cash, he does not remember exactly the amount in cash. Arik met with the defendant in the parking lot of Ramle Prison in order to give him the money (p. 430).
192. Arik confirmed that the five checks whose photocopy appears in Exhibit P/81 are the checks detailed in Charge 4, which he gave to the defendant. The witness is not familiar with the peace exchange in Rishon LeZion, where the checks were deducted (p. 431). When he was told that the defendant had stated in response to the indictment and in police interrogations that Arik had deducted the checks on a customer card of a Russian man because the change had asked for it from Eric and the defendant when they arrived together at the exchange, Arik replied that it was a lie, that he had never been to this change and that he had no reason to go there because he was not from the area (p. 432). When asked what his connection was to Michael Zeidpodim, he replied that he did not know the name, and even after he was shown a photocopy of Zeidpodim's ID card that had been caught in Cheying (P/85), he said that he did not know him (p. 432).
193. In conversation No. 962 of February 7, 2018 at 8:59 A.M., Arik coordinated with the defendant the arrival of Arik at Ramle Prison, in order to give him bills or something else – Arik did not remember in his testimony what he wanted to give the defendant on that date (p. 433). In conversation No. 963, from that day and about half an hour later, Arik informed the defendant that he had arrived at the parking lot and asked the defendant to go out to him (p. 433). To the question of when he gave the defendant check No. 2009, p. 24, NIS 370 (P/81), he replied that he did not remember, but that the receipt for the check deduction was from that day, February 7, 2018 (P/83, p. 436).
194. In conversation No. 1231 of February 11, 2018, Arik and the defendant discussed that check No. 2009 was "returned" because the word "thousand" was not written after the words "twenty-four." The witness confirmed that it was a check that he had given to the defendant (p. 434).

He does not know what the defendant did with the check, but he understands that the defendant gave it to someone, who said that the check was returned. Arik suggested that the same person contact him directly, and that he try to deposit again after Arik spoke to his bank. When asked why he gave the defendant this check, he replied that the check was given as part of the calculations of the two. Arik clarified that the money the defendant had received from him, in exchange for work (p. 435). In his conversation with the defendant, Arik suggested that he come and amend the check and add the word "thousand" to it, but the defendant told him that the check was no longer with him and that Arik understood that the defendant had passed the check on (p. 436).

195. The next day, on February 12, 2018, at 9:55 A.M., the defendant sent Arik the mobile phone number of a contact person known as Benny Change (P/76, A.M.5). Arik testified that he did not know the man, but he called the same Benny, asked if he had a check with him and told Benny to talk to the bank and explain the situation in order to deposit the check (pp. 436-437).
196. In conversation No. 1280 of February 12, 2018 at 10:17, a man is heard saying in the background: "I give you every one month, you will see that everything has been transferred to the card...", the defendant asks: "It is possible?..." and Arik replies that there is a certificate. The defendant replies that "he is already at the bank". Arik stated in his testimony that the check was in question, and that the check was deposited (p. 437). Arik was asked again about the defendant's response to the indictment, according to which Arik went to change to pay the checks, and he replied that it was a lie and that he did not know the man at the change at all (p. 437).
197. During his interrogation on November 7, 2018, Arik refused to confront the defendant. When asked why, he replied in his testimony that he did not want to confront him (p. 441). He feared that the defendant would use people against him (p. 442).

Cross-examination

198. Arik reached a plea bargain in his case because he did not want to sit in jail (p. 443). He worked with the IPS as a main contractor, but also worked on one project as a subcontractor, in sealing work in a facility in Tel Aviv (p. 444).

To the question of whether he transferred money to the defendant in the years 2017-2018, he replied, "Approximately, I don't remember the dates, but yes." The first time was "around 2018" and it ended with the arrest of Arik (p. 444).

199. As a main contractor, Arik had a framework agreement with the IPS, which included a price list. Arik confirmed that he had inflated the budget estimates by 10%. Thus, for example, instead of the 80 meters written in the budget estimate, he performed 10% less in the field (pp. 445-446). Arik won the tender as a sole supplier, there was no other party that won in the field of sealing. When asked how he would have depended on the defendant if he had been the only winner in the field of sealing in the IPS, he replied that even with all the experience he had, "even the smallest man can get dirty on you..."; "... I didn't take a chance" (p. 447).
200. To the question of when and where he transferred NIS 70,000 in cash to the defendant, Arik replied that it was a cumulative sum and that the money transfers were usually made in the parking lot of the IPS facility in Ramla. Arik arrived there in his car and the defendant went out to him. Sometimes he put the money in an envelope or plastic bag and sometimes took it out of his pocket (p. 448). The money he transferred to the defendant was in transactions that were executed and for which he received payment (p. 454).
201. Arik had difficulty estimating his profit, since in general his profit was about one-third, but he also had transactions in which he had losses (p. 455).
202. The five checks that he gave to the defendant (P/81) he originally gave to subcontractors and received these checks back from them. He has no documentation of this (p. 458).
203. Arik confirmed that the ten percent that he transferred to the defendant was also for the conversion of future work (pp. 459-461). He did not report that he had lost checks, but rather gave them and after receiving them back, he transferred them to the defendant (p. 462). The checks were reported according to a receipt tax invoice received from the parties who received the checks from him at the source (p. 462).
204. Arik denied the claim that he wanted to deduct checks without any connection to the defendant. He stuck to his statement that he did not know the change and never got there (p. 464). He spoke on the phone with Benny from the change, but in response to the defense attorney's question he did not know that it was a person who had a change. He did say "Benny Change" on the phone, but he thought it was a surname (p. 464). He spoke to the bank and approved the deposit of the check for Benny Change. He does not remember from which phone he called or the date of the call (p. 466). He announced that he had given a check and that the word "Alef" was missing, and asked to correct and approve payment to the sons of Change (p. 467).
205. The witness was referred to his third police interrogation on November 7, 2018, in which he told the interrogator that he understood from the interrogator that he was not being sought, but rather the defendant (p. 470). In his testimony in court, he testified that he did not remember Marciano telling him these things (p. 472). During the interrogation he was under terrible pressure and did not remember what he said and why (p. 473).
206. At the beginning of the police interrogation, Arik said that he did not give any bribe or payment to the defendant, but later admitted that he had done so. Arik referred to this and noted that he had not lied to the police, but that his first words were said at the beginning of the interrogation, when he did not yet understand what was happening and felt pressure, for the first time at the age of 70 during interrogation by the police and after his arrest. However, there was nothing wrong with his interrogation, and the interrogators were very nice (pp. 473-474). He said that at the beginning of the interrogation he maintained his right to remain silent, but immediately afterwards, when asked if he had been at the change in Rishon LeZion, he answered unequivocally in the negative, to which Arik responded in his testimony: "It made me jump because it did not exist and was not created" (p. 475).
207. Arik testified that his financial situation was good (p. 475). He brought the cash (NIS 70,000) from his pocket. At the time of his testimony he had NIS 3,000 in his pocket (p. 476). He can show withdrawals from his personal account of more than NIS 70,000 (p. 476). He withdraws cash from the account because he has laborers, who eat lunch outside every day. He gives them money, they bring him receipts, and at the end of the month he issues a check for all the receipts, and pays the check and receives the money in cash (pp. 477-478). To the question of whether he ever deducted checks at any exchange, he answered in the negative. Sometimes he gave the bank a check from a third party for deduction (p. 482). This was 15-17 years ago, when he worked with contractors. Since then, he has worked almost exclusively with institutional entities and there is only one contractor with whom he works (p. 483).
208. In the WhatsApp correspondence with the defendant, no mention was made of money transfers. In conversation No. 163 of January 24, 2018, 10 percent was not mentioned. Arik noted in his testimony that this was a different case from the other cases, in which the defendant decided in advance what the amount of the invoice and the amount of the check would be. Arik did not see an order and did not know what the budget would be (p. 493). In conversations Nos. 962 and 663, Arik also did not mention paying 10 percent (p. 494). To the question of why, he replied that they were supposed to pay for the car, and he did not have to say it over the phone, this was known in advance (p. 494). Thus, for example, if he had to perform a job of NIS 100,000, the defendant would have increased it to NIS 110,000 so that Arik would not lose (p. 495). According to Arik, he still lost, but agreed to it (p. 495).

Testimony of Binyamin Bezov (transcript of December 21, 2021)