Main Inquiry
- Bezov previously worked at the "HaShalom" exchange at 8 Lishansky Street, Rishon Lezion (pp. 516-517). The witness was indicted in criminal case 30651-04-20 in the Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court, for opening a ticket for Michael Zeidpodim at the defendant's request, and was sentenced to a fine of NIS 20,000 and suspended imprisonment (p. 518).
- The witness stated that he had no acquaintance with Zeidpods (p. 519). If an action is performed on a customer card on a exchange, only that customer is supposed to perform the action. A person is permitted to perform an action on behalf of another person only when the two come together. In Zeidposim's customer card, no one was listed as a courier who could perform transactions for him. In retrospect, it was explained to the witness that he should have demanded from the defendant a power of attorney and an identity card of ZeidPods (p. 519).
- Bezov was presented with receipts of the check discounting transactions (P/83) and the card card report 10162 Various SidePods (P/82). The witness stated that these were transactions of cashing checks, all of which were made with the customer card of ZydePods, and that the owner of the checks was Gomaitum – whom he did not know (p. 528).
- In call No. 1810 of November 1, 2018, Bezov called the defendant at 9:00 P.M. and asked to see her urgently. In his testimony, he was asked why he had asked for it, and he replied that he wanted her to explain "why she did this to us." The defendant asked him if they had come to him, referring to the authorities (p. 521). In conversation No. 1812, the defendant told Bazov that it was not worthwhile to meet because her lawyer had advised her that there might be surveillance (p. 521). In his testimony, Bezov stated that the defendant was a customer of the change (p. 522). At first he did not know the defendant at all, and later he did not know him in depth. He does not have his phone number. His accused spouse always came alone (p. 523). She told him that her husband had a friend who needed to cash a check, and that was how he got to know the defendant (p. 524).
- The witness was shown Zeidpodim's identity card. When asked if he knew Zeidpodim, he replied that he had opened a card for him and photographed it, and therefore he was sure that he had seen it. The witness insisted on his answer even when he was told that Zeidpods were abroad at the time the card was opened in his name (p. 524).
- He was presented with the confrontation between him and the defendant on November 7, 2018, in which he stated that the defendant had arrived with another person and that the defendant had received the money (after he did not remember who received the money in his testimony). He was asked in his testimony how many times he had seen the defendant, and he replied that he did not remember. He was referred to his interrogation on November 2, 2018, in which he stated that he had seen the defendant at least two or three times. He was asked who the defendant had come with, and he replied that he did not remember. A refresh of his memory based on the transcript of the confrontation from November 7, 2018, revealed that the defendant had arrived alone on the following occasions (p. 526).
- Bazov was told that the defendant claimed in the confrontation and in response to the indictment that he had come to the exchange for the first time with Arik, and that the reason the card was opened in the name of Zeidpods was that Bezov had told the defendant to open a customer card in the name of a Russian man. Bezov's response in his testimony was that he did not remember and that "there is no such thing" (p. 527).
Cross-examination
- In his cross-examination as well, Bezov reiterated that the defendant was with another person when he opened the card – the person in whose name the card was opened, otherwise he would not have opened it (pp. 531, 534). I will note again that there is no dispute that Zeidpodim was abroad at the time, and I will add that Bezov's words contradict his confession in the indictment in his case.
- To the question of how the defendant acted as a messenger if he was not registered as such, he replied that at that time they did not know the law (p. 535). He categorically ruled out the possibility that Arik had arrived and acted as an emissary, and insisted that he had never seen Arik (p. 535). The witness identified the defendant without difficulty (p. 540).
Maj. Arik Marciano (transcript of October 18, 2022, p. 385)