It was argued that the defense was unable to deal with the variety of evidence submitted to the court.
- The accuser referred to the various pieces of evidence submitted regarding the activity in the exchange, first and foremost the copies of the checks (P/81); the receipts for check discounting transactions (P/83); the defendant's contradictory and unfounded versions; the testimony of Bezov (who was himself convicted) and the defense's refusal to accuse him of the defendant's current version; locating findings in relation to the defendant and Arik; the various pieces of evidence relating to the delivery of the check on February 7, 2018 and until the check discounting transaction, cash deposits in the defendant's bank accounts; the problem that arose regarding the error in the registration on the check.
- The accuser claimed that in our case, there are also offenses under the Prohibition of Money Laundering Law, in relation to the five checks that are the subject of this indictment (and not with respect to the cash money). The bribe money of the five checks is considered "prohibited property"; opening a fictitious card on the "HaShalom" exchange A different appeal is an offense of obstruction of reporting, after which actions were carried out with "prohibited property" in order to conceal or disguise the owner of the rights in the property and its source.
Charge 4 - Defense Summaries
- The defense raised the general claim that "denied and not proven" with respect to all that was stated in indictment 4. The defense also argued that Arik testified under the "guillotine of withdrawal from the plea bargain," and that if he had not given the defendant's head, Arik would have been on trial for the most serious offenses (money laundering).
- Arik and the defendant's acquaintance began in 2012, during the period when the defendant served as a systems maintenance officer at the Hadarim Medical Center. The defendant was in charge of the execution of projects by Arik, and was very impressed by the professional work, the management of documents and the submission of accounts. During that period, a friendly relationship developed between the defendant and Arik. The defendant believed that he could learn from Eric, who is proficient in the field of sealing, and as an IPS employee, there was no impediment to a friendship because the defendant had no influence on issuing orders or performing sealing work at the IPS.
- All the orders for sealing work in the Central District were carried out under the supervision of the defendant and after an examination by the Construction Department. The defendant is only a small part of the chain of those responsible for the construction issue in the Central District. Since this is the budget of the Construction Department, a representative of the Department performs budgetary monitoring and supervision after the execution of a project. There is no option for the contractor to inflate the price or to perform it differently from the bills of quantities.
- In 2017, "roof sealing" projects were carried out in the Central District by Gomaitom in a total amount of approximately NIS 660,000. According to the defense's calculations, when VAT, income tax, national insurance, payment to employees, and the cost of materials are deducted from this amount, the sum amounts to approximately NIS 280,000. It was argued that it was illogical that Arik transferred the sum of NIS 145,370 (the amount of the checks) to the defendant from this sum.
- In July 2017, Arik came to the defendant about work matters, and also told about his personal life. He told about a vacation he was going to spend in Russia and asked for "tips." The defense summaries also stated: "[Arik] also told the defendant about a problem with contractors of Arab origin, that he had to take them to carry out a certain project, in some municipality, these are contractors, who demanded that he make cash payments for the work they performed, and each time, he had to create some kind of 'combine,' in order to pay them in cash, and he didn't have enough, because he works with checks, because most of the work he performs in government institutions." It was claimed that the Arabic names on the checks corroborate this. It was also claimed that the defendant told Arik that his wife knew the owner of Change, who had previously exchanged foreign currency for shekels for their neighbor who lived in Russia and used them to renovate his apartment [ZyPods]. Arik asked for the details of the change, and the defendant called Change for him and explained the need. The owner of the change, Bezov, replied that there was no problem, but that he needed to check whether the neighbor's card was still open. After checking, Bezov said that ZyPods' card had expired and that a photocopy of his ID card was needed again. The defendant had a photocopy of ZydePods' ID card from the time he helped renovate the apartment.
- The next day, Arik arrived at the defendant's office, and together the two drove to Change, where Zov opened a customer card for Arik and took the first check from him. A few days later, the defendant called the defendant, claiming that Zov was looking for the person who gave the check, since there was a problem with the check. The defendant sent Bezov the phone and asked Arik not to involve him in the matters of the change and checks (it should be noted that I did not find in the defendant's testimony the things described in the defense summaries as having occurred a few days after the first check was deducted).
A few months later, the defendant entered the exchange to buy dollars for a family trip abroad, and Babov told him that his friend Arik had recently been at the exchange. The defendant found out that Arik continued to use the exchange's services to deduct checks from minority contractors.
- A few months after the first visit to the Exchange, Zezov called the defendant again and asked for Arik's phone, claiming that Arik was not answering the phone and that he had Arik's money that he had and that he had to hand it over to him. At that moment, the defendant asked Bezov not to call him and told him that opening the card was a one-time event, only to solve the problem with the contractor in a specific way for Arik's benefit. The defendant even asked that Zyfoodim's card be closed and not used again, and that he not involve him in the exchange affairs with Arik.
- Arik took advantage of the defendant's innocence. During his interrogation with the police, Arik explicitly said that he understood from the interrogator that he was not being "looked" for him, but for the defendant, and that he understood that if he spoke, they would "look" for the defendant and not him.
Charge 4 - Hearing
- In his testimony, Arik described the defendant's demand to add 10 percent to the estimates he was issuing and to transfer this 10 percent to him. I was impressed by the sincerity of Arik's words, when he described his reluctance to do so and his attempts to persuade the defendant to refrain from doing so. The same was true when he described the reason he agreed to the defendant's demand – his desire to continue working with the IPS. Arik did not benefit financially from inflating the sums. Even when asked directly by the defense attorney how he depended on the defendant, since he was the only winner of the IPS sealing tender, he described his concerns about the defendant's ability to negatively affect his continued work with the IPS. It should be added that Arik sometimes served as a subcontractor, so the thought of converting future work is also relevant to a certain extent. Arik's testimony was devoid of exaggeration or blackening. Thus, when asked how many jobs he inflated prices and changed price quotes, he replied that he did not remember. He testified reluctantly.
I will add that the manner in which Arik broke his silence during the police interrogation, when he was asked if he had come to Change and denied it outright, and his statement in his testimony that the same question "jumped" him because it never happened – also show his credibility.