Criminal Case (Center) 6040-07-20 State of Israel v. Arkadi Shkovitzky - part 35

Testimony of the Defendant (Transcript of January 4, 2023)

Main Inquiry

227. The defendant described the work process regarding sealing work in the IPS. Gomaitom won a tender for sealing work in 2012 and since then has been the only contractor working for the IPS in this field. In summary, the construction officer and his supervisor, the TAL officer, determine which projects need to be carried out, update the person in charge of the construction department, who inspects and sends it to the contractor. The contractor coordinates a meeting with the construction officer or his representative to tour the field, and within a week or two a schedule and price is submitted to the construction department. The price is based on a tender book of sealing work. The construction department decides what it approves for each district. At this point, coordination begins between the construction officer and the representative of the unit and the contractor. The construction officer audits and supervises the project. Finally, after the construction officer signs the invoice, he transfers it to the retrial of the reconstruction, who usually sends a person on his behalf for examination. The retrial signs the invoice, and the invoice is sent for payment (p. 497).
228. The defendant noted that a main contractor is supposed to earn between 15-20 percent, and if Arik earns between 20-25 percent, and pays the defendant thousands of shekels, he does not earn at all, and this does not make sense. In addition, with the exception of one case, Arik served only as a main contractor, and as a main contractor, the defendant is not responsible for him, he is not responsible for issuing orders to him or supervising him, and he only comes to the field to check (p. 502).
229. He denied receiving NIS 70,000 in cash and five checks from Arik (p. 505). In 2017, Arik received orders in the amount of approximately NIS 675,000, and it is illogical that out of this sum he bribed the defendant in the amount of NIS 145,000, due to the other expenses that Arik incurred – taxes, payment to employees, and the cost of materials (p. 512).
230. In order to reach the Ombudsman's parking lot, an entry permit is required, which is not given to everyone, and if it does, it is recorded. However, the defendant confirmed that in the past there was a large parking lot outside the IPS (p. 506).
231. Arik told the defendant that he was working with subcontractors of Arab origin who wanted cash, and asked him if he knew "some Russian" who wanted to exchange money. The defendant came up with an idea. His wife is active in an association for children with cancer who come to Israel from all over the world. She referred him to "Benny Change", to which she sends the tourists and he gives them convenient commissions. The defendant called Benny and told him about the contractor friend, and Benny invited him and the contractor to the exchange. The defendant and Arik arrived at the change on July 4, 2017, and Benny checked and said that there was a person who had a card opened for him and used to come frequently to exchange money.

Benny took the defendant's ID card, but did not sign it: "It was conducted with the contractor (Arik – M.B.) in front of the change, I was simply the person who knew the person at the change, and that was the end of the story for me" (pp. 498, 510).

232. The defendant denied that he had given Zeidpodim's ID card for the purpose of opening the card at a different Zeidpodim appeal change (pp. 510-511). On the day he arrived at the exchange with Arik, Bezov asked him if he knew Zeipodim. The defendant did not remember why Bezov asked this. The defendant replied that it was someone who had bought an apartment from him. Bezov asked if the defendant had a Zeidpodim ID card, to which the defendant replied that he did not, but that he had a sales contract (p. 513). The defendant showed Zeidpodim a photocopy of Zeidpodim's ID card from the file of the sale contract (p. 514). The defendant denied giving Zeidpodim's ID card to Zazov, according to which he only showed Zeidpods the photo, and Bazov was already up to date with the ID card because Zeidpods already had a card (p. 514). The defendant knew the change through Zeidpods (p. 514).
233. He knew Michael Zeidpodim, a wealthy man, when he was his neighbor on Zalman Shazar Street (p. 511). In 2012, the defendants sold an apartment to the Zeidpodim, they connected to a certain extent, and he said that he was exchanging money (p. 513).
234. At a later stage, the defendant found out that the matter was continuing and that for several months Arik used to come to the exchange and exchange the checks of the Arab contractors. The defendant did not know in real time that Arik continued to come to the change (p. 498).
235. The defendant came to the change in July 2017 on a one-time basis and denied the claim that he had been there again. On November 5, 2017, he arrived at the garage near the change, and suddenly saw Arik, who was not from the area. Arik told him that he had visited the change (p. 499). Only then did the defendant find out that Arik had continued to come to the change (pp. 510-511). The defendant believes that Arik wanted to "save himself" and receive a lighter sentence of community service.

He noted that Arik is not a friend or relative, he has no desire or ability to transfer money to the defendant, and the defendant also has no influence over him – since he is a single concessionaire who was selected in a special tender for sealing work (p. 499).

236. One day, he approached him and asked for Arik's phone, stating that Arik had a problem with the checks. As a result, the defendant spoke to Arik on the phone and yelled at him for bringing him into his business (p. 511).

Cross-examination (transcript of February 20, 2023 and transcript of February 27, 2023)

237. The defendant denied Shaked's statements in his testimony to the police and in court, according to which the defendant took a note and wrote the number 10 and the sign "percent" on it, and told him that this is how they work with him (transcript of February 20, 2023, p. 571). To the claim that Roni Kofi also testified this way (Charge No. 13), the defendant responded with contempt and said that it was a word of a worker versus a word of a construction officer and that Sharoni was talking nonsense (pp. 571-572).
238. With regard to the budgetary estimates for the waterproofing of the roof at Ayalon Prison (Exhibit P/77), and the 10% gap between the estimate given on November 1, 2017 and the estimate given on November 16, 2017, the defendant responded that this has nothing to do with him, that he does not intervene in the examination of sealing orders and does not deal with sealing at all, but only performs supervision after an order has been issued (pp. 573, 576). He receives the invitation after a tour was held and three people checked, and only after receiving the permits can he sign a work that has been done (p. 574). The prosecutor drew the defendant's attention to the fact that the budget estimate document on the right says "Inspector: Arkadi", and the defendant replied that Arik can write whatever he wants (p. 574).
239. With regard to the roof sealing project at the Tel Aviv Detention Center, exhibits P/115 and P/116, which show according to Sgt. Oppenheim and Major Marciano about a clear case of inflating a bill of quantities, the defendant claimed that Oppenheim's measurement was incorrect and that Oppenheim was not an engineer and lacked professional training (p. 578).
240. Conversation No. 163 of January 24, 2018, in which the defendant tells Arik about the roof waterproofing project in the Tel Aviv detention center: "I need you to send me a proposal of thirty-six thousand shekels, including VAT, for the sealing." The defendant claimed that he had informed Arik about the budget he had received (p. 578), and also told the plaintiff that he was asking questions of a 10-year-old boy (p. 579). The plaintiff referred to the fact that later in the conversation, Arik asked: "Thirty-six thousand shekels, not according to meters, about... Zhatomer, how many meters will come out, you say, right," and the defendant replied to Arik: "I don't know, do what you think." The defendant reiterated that he did not determine the amount, but only updated about it, and that the person who determined the amount was a retrial retrial (pp. 579-580).
241. The prosecutor referred to another conversation (No. 147) from the same day (January 24, 2018), between the defendant and Tavorinsky, the main contractor in the roof sealing project at the Tel Aviv detention center, in which Tavorinsky said that the defendant had forgotten him. The defendant denied in his testimony that he was directing work to contractors, and about the fact that he told Tavorinsky, "It's easier for me to get a project," he explained that it was easier for him to get a project because he was a construction officer in the field (pp. 580-581).

On the fact that he had inquired in a conversation with Tavorinsky about the budget he had left in that detention center (NIS 100,000), he explained that there was a possibility of taking advantage of the budget that remained in that prison, with the approval of a retrial (p. 582). When asked what his connection was with Sergei Shchalovich, the supervisor at Abu Kabir and a construction officer in the IPS Commission, who is mentioned in the conversation, the defendant confirmed that he had once transferred Sergei's attendance card, at Sergei's request (p. 583). The defendant denied the claim that because of this favor, Sergei returned him a favor by allowing the defendant to receive from Tavorinsky's budget for the project in question (p. 585).

242. In a conversation that took place the day before (No. 113 of January 23, 2018), the defendant told Sergey that he needed a budget for a project in the detention center, which amounted to NIS 15,000-20,000, and Sergey said that he would also check if possible 80,000-90,000 (p. 585). The prosecutor emphasized that the expected costs were NIS 15,000-20,000, while the price eventually reached about NIS 36,000.

The defendant replied that at first they wanted to carry out only the entire entrance, but later they decided to do other things as well. To the argument that there was no evidence of a desire to do more things, the defendant replied that there was a bill of quantities (I will note that the title in the bill of quantities refers to the visitors' roof and not to other things) (p. 587).

243. In conversation No. 218 of January 28, 2018, the defendant informed Tavorinsky that he had closed with Sergey from the construction regarding the budget, and instructed Tavorinsky, the main contractor, to send him an invoice and checks, even before the work was carried out, because this is how the defendant had agreed in advance with the performers of the work. Later in the conversation, the defendant said: "What do you care, you issue your invoice with the IPS." In his testimony, the defendant insisted that Tavorinsky paid directly to the person who carried out the work and that the tax invoices and checks did not pass through him (pp. 589, 595).
244. In conversation No. 225 of January 28, 2018, Tavorinsky asked the defendant questions about things that the defendant had sent him. The defendant confirmed in his testimony that he told Tavorinsky in this conversation the price he had to record and the date of payment, in the sealing project at the Tel Aviv detention center (pp. 596-597).

Also in the same conversation, the defendant told Tavorinsky that he would make sure that he had a contractor profit of 15% instead of 10% (p. 596). The defendant replied that he did not remember that conversation. According to him, he did not intervene in the question of how much the contractor would earn, and apparently Sergei spoke with Tavorinsky (transcript of February 27, 2023, p. 561).

245. At the end of conversation No. 225, Taburinsky asked the defendant if he wanted him to send him checks the next day, and the defendant replied in the affirmative, stating that he would be in Haifa the next day. Despite what was stated in the conversation, the defendant denied that he had received checks from Tavorinsky and even denied that he had passed the checks on to the contractors (p. 598). Later in the cross-examination, when asked again whether he had not received checks from a main contractor, the defendant replied that he had not received checks, but invoices in envelopes (transcript of February 27, 2023, p. 562).

However, later in the cross-examination (on February 27, 2023), the defendant testified that there were cases in which the main contractor could not reach the area and therefore left an envelope (or nylon) with the defendant, and it is reasonable to assume that there was also a check there. The main contractor asked the defendant to transfer what he received (transcript of February 27, 2023, p. 558).

246. In conversation No. 667 of February 4, 2018, Meir of D.B.S. told the defendant that in the past he had brought him a check and that he needed to bring him an envelope from D.B.S. again, and the two arranged to meet. In a conversation that took place ten minutes later between the defendant and Arik, call no. 675 of February 4, 2018, the defendant told Arik that he had checked the check on the way to him with a courier. In his testimony, the defendant said that this was a specific case in which the contractor refused to carry out work before he had the payment. According to him, he did not know what was in the envelope, but he could guess what it contained (p. 561).
247. In conversation No. 281 of January 29, 2018, the defendant said to Burinsky, "Then bring me a check, uh... checks." In his testimony, the defendant claimed: "I did not receive checks in my hands" (p. 563). The defendant insisted that he did not know that the envelopes he received contained checks (p. 564).
248. In conversation No. 311 of January 29, 2018, the defendant asked Arik to send him a tax invoice so that Tavorinsky could issue him a check. After some twisting, the defendant confirmed in his testimony that in this case he served as a central axis between the main contractor and the executing contractor (p. 565).
249. The plaintiff presented from P/76 (discharging Arik's phone) a message No. 17 dated January 31, 2018 from Arik to the defendant: "Corrected estimates were sent to you for fax", as well as Arik's statement in his testimony that he had sent the defendant inflated estimates. The defendant did not respond to the merits of the matter, and noted that he did not have a fax (pp. 565-566). In a previous statement dated January 30, 2018, Arik wrote to the defendant that the clerk of D.B.S. said that he would receive the check from the defendant. To the question of whether Arik had received a check from him, he answered in the negative (p. 566).
250. In conversation No. 889 of February 6, 2018, the defendant told Arik that the check was in his (the defendant's) possession. To the plaintiff's question, the defendant replied that he had opened the envelope and saw a check. When asked if he had lied to the court a short time earlier, when he testified that he had not received checks, he replied that he did not remember the specific case (p. 566).
251. The defendant was told that Arik had described a large number of cases in which he inflated the price quote and then paid the defendant a bribe. The defendant rejected the statement, adding that Arik had not inflated the price, but had sent price quotes to the Construction Department, which examined his bids (pp. 566-567).
252. The defendant came with Arik to the Exchange, only once (p. 568). The defendant and his wife know the Zeidpodim, who was their neighbor and even before that he had bought an apartment from them in 2013 or 2014. They helped him renovate the apartment he had purchased next to them because he is an Israeli citizen who does not live in Israel. The defendant had a photocopy of Zeidpodim's ID card (p. 568). According to him, the Change had a photocopy of Zeidpodim's ID card even before he, the defendant, brought the photocopy of the identity card to the Change (p. 568). To the claim that Zeidpodim's customer card was opened only on July 4, 2017, the defendant replied that he did not know when the card was opened, and that the owner of the exchange had told him in a phone call before he arrived that day with Arik, that he needed the ID card and did not know if it was in his hands (p. 569). According to the claim that in his interrogations with the police and in his response to the indictment, his version was different, according to which Bezov asked him for a Russian ID card, the defendant claimed that he reminded Bazov that he was such a guy. The defendant insisted that he told Bazov that he already had a Zeidpods ID card, and noted that he did not know how the exchange was conducted in the past when Zeidpodim used to arrive with cash and exchange it for shekels (p. 569). The defendant claimed that the difference in the versions lies in the fact that he had difficulty recalling what he said while he was handcuffed by the police (but was reminded that there were also interrogations after his release from detention, in December 2018 and March 2019) (p. 570).

At this point, the defendant claimed that he had shown Bazov the photocopy of the ID card on his phone, and that Bazov had seen the photo and said that he already had this ID card. According to him, Bezov lied when he denied that he had asked the defendant to provide him with the details of a Russian man, and Bazov even threatened his wife, the defendant (pp. 570-571).

253. Arik lied when he said that he had never been to the said exchange. Arik asked him to accompany him to the exchange, and shared with him that he traveled a lot, played in the casino and needed cash, but that he only worked with institutions that did not pay cash. Arik asked if the defendant had anyone who could give him cash. The defendant offered to contact the exchange, called his wife and received Bezov's details from her, and called Bezov who told them to come (p. 575).
254. The plaintiff noted that according to P/164 of the communication data disk in the file, the location of Arik's phone, on July 4, 2017, August 24, 2017, September 17, 2017, and February 7, 2018, Arik was not located in Rishon Lezion at all (the location for February 7, 2018 was also submitted as exhibit P/86). In response, the defendant claimed that he did not know how the exchange was conducted, and that it was possible that they arrived at the exchange at a different time or that another person on Arik's behalf arrived on his behalf (p. 576). The plaintiff asked about July 4, 2017, the day the card was opened, and Arik was not even close to Rishon LeZion. The defendant offered an explanation, according to which they were not at the exchange on that date, and the card was opened on a different date. According to him, Bezov lied when he testified that the incident took place on July 4, 2017 (p. 577).
255. As for February 7, 2018, in conversation No. 962 from 8:59 a.m., the defendant and Arik coordinate Arik's arrival with the defendant. From conversation No. 963 from 9:27 a.m. between the two, it appears that Arik came to the defendant for parking. The defendant confirmed this (p. 578). The plaintiff referred to exhibit P/83, a receipt dated February 7, 2018 at 10:45 a.m., a transaction for discounting a check by Gomaitum in the amount of NIS 24,370. The defendant was asked if he knew this, and he replied, "Could it be okay?" (p. 578). The prosecutor noted that the transaction was executed on a Zeidpods card, the defendant refused to approve the document, and asked what it had to do with it (p. 578). The plaintiff referred to the location of the defendant Exhibit P/164, on February 7, 2018, the defendant was located at 9:27 a.m. (when he spoke with Arik) still in Ramle, then in Rishon Lezion at 10:27, and between 10:53 and 10:57 at the address of Lishansky 17 Rishon LeZion, 400 meters from the Change. Afterwards, he was stationed in Ramle later in the day. To the argument that the locations support what is stated in the indictment, the defendant replied that this is not true (pp. 578-579). The plaintiff claimed that for each of the checks, the defendant was the one who came to the change, and the defendant responded that he had nothing to do with it (579).

To the claim that on February 7, 2018, at 10:45 a.m., Arik was located on Herzl Street in Ramle, so that there was no possibility that he was the one who was at the exchange, the defendant replied that he did not know how the exchange worked (p. 579).

256. According to the bank documents submitted in P/141 and P/142, on February 8, 2018 (the next day), the defendant deposited NIS 10,000 in cash into his bank account at Discount Bank, and an additional NIS 11,000 in cash to his and his wife's joint account at Discount. The defendant did not deny this (579-580).
257. In conversation No. 1203 of February 11, 2018, the defendant told his defendant's wife that he had deposited about NIS 20,000 into the accounts and that there was about NIS 3,000 in the house. The plaintiff claimed that out of a check of about NIS 24,000, the entire bribery route was revealed: NIS 21,000 was deposited and about NIS 3,000 in cash remained in the house. In his response to these words, the defendant began to talk about the fact that he had been in the affair for four years, that his conversations with his wife were not always translated correctly, that the matter was illogical, that he did not take a bribe, etc. (p. 582).
258. To the argument that the defendant mixed the cash he received from the hotel business with the money he received as a bribe, and deposited everything in cash and thus committed the offense of money laundering, the defendant replied that this was not true, that he was accountable for every cash deposit, and that the rental money appeared and was reported by an accountant (p. 584).
259. Sequence of calls from February 11, 2018:

Conversation No. 1229 of February 11, 2018, very brief, between the defendant and his defendant's wife, regarding an attempt to reach Bezov (p. 584).