Moreover, the defense did not point to a motive for incriminating the defendant, and Arik himself was injured as a result of the affair and was convicted of criminal offenses in a separate proceeding. Under these circumstances, I got the impression that he was a reliable witness.
- The message that Arik sent to the defendant in May 2017, according to which the two would meet and discuss "order accounts and accounts" – indeed strengthens Arik's version. The defense did not provide any other explanation for the "calculations" that the two should discuss. In addition, the two budget estimates from November 2017, which relate to the same work (for which the defendant is registered as a supervisor) and have an inexplicable gap of 10% between them, also strengthen the accuser's evidence. The defense did not provide an explanation for this either. The defendant claimed in his testimony that he does not intervene in the examination of sealing orders and only supervises after an order has been issued, but his words are concealed by Arik's reliable testimony and by Arik's announcement above that the two will discuss, among other things, "orders".
- Defendant Eric's request in January 2018 to prepare a price quote for the roof sealing project at the Tel Aviv Detention Center in an amount he had dictated in advance, when Arik estimated the real cost of the work at about half of the amount, also strengthens the accuser's evidence. In this conversation, it can even be seen that the two insist that the amount should not be round, apparently in order to disguise the process being made. The defendant does not know the size of the work, and instructs Arik to specify the size of the area at his discretion. Moreover, as described above, Sgt. Oppenheim made a measurement confirming the existence of actual inflation, while the defendant's claim regarding an incorrect measurement of Oppenheim and the fact that he lacked appropriate professional training was not supported by measurement or other evidence on his behalf. The defendant was not satisfied with his cross-examination with his statements against Oppenheim's training, but also reacted nervously and insulted the attorney because he was asking "questions of a 10-year-old boy." Indeed, in his cross-examination, the defendant testified with considerable restlessness.
- In the defense summaries, it was argued that there is no option at all for a contractor to inflate prices, since the bills of quantities and invoices go through a chain of approvals, with the defendant being only a small part of this chain. This argument has already been discussed above in the framework of the discussion of the defendant's general claims. In the matter of this charge, it should be added that Superintendent Oppenheim, who examined the inflating of the project at the Abu Kabir Detention Center, explained that there are various theoretical possibilities for inflating the cost of a project, and explicitly stated that there is no authority in the district above the construction officer who professionally examines the work that has been performed.
I will add that the defendant had no substantive response to the claim that Ronnie Kofi, whose case is being heard in Charge No. 13, described a similar conduct of a demand to inflate prices. In his remarks, the defendant expressed contempt and condescension, without any response to the substance of the matter. The same is true of the claim that in Arik's message of January 31, 2018 that he had sent the defendant "faxed revised estimates", Arik informed him that he had in fact sent inflated estimates (as he clarified in his testimony), the defendant's only response was that he did not have a fax.
- It was also claimed in the defense summaries that in 2017 Gomaitum carried out 8 projects in the IPS, totaling approximately NIS 660,000, and that it is illogical that after the deductions prescribed by law and Arik's expenses, Arik paid the defendant the sum of approximately NIS 145,000 (the five checks that are the subject of the indictment). However, an examination of Exhibit P/173 shows that there was another project (Nitzan Prison) in which Gomaitum issued invoice No. 184 on January 4, 2017 (NIS 107, NIS 640 including VAT), as well as two additional invoices (No. 180 NIS 118, NIS 840 including VAT, Ayalon Prison; No. 181 NIS 20, NIS 336, Ayalon Prison) from the end of 2016 – November 30, 2016 (this without taking into account additional invoices from July and August 2016 that were attached as part of Exhibit P/173). The indictment deals with the period between 2016 and 2018, when, according to Arik's testimony, the money transfers to the defendant were made in the years 2017-2018. Hence, it appears that the defense's reference to projects carried out in 2017 is too restrictive and does not take into account other relevant projects.
- There is also evidence that the defendant was a liaison between the subcontractor Arik and the main contractor, D.B.S. Tavorinsky – telephone conversations that the defendant had with Arik, Doron and a courier named Meir; correspondence between the defendant and Arik; and even the defendant's confirmation of his testimony (after attempts at denial). The defendant received an invoice from Gomaitum for the purpose of transferring it to D.B.S., and forwarded a check of D.B.S. to Arik. This evidence contradicts the defendant's claim regarding lack of involvement in the relationship between a main contractor and a subcontractor. After claiming that he had no involvement, the defendant was forced to admit, after stubborn cross-examination, that in that case he served as a central axis between the main contractor and the contractor.
- The defense argued that Arik testified out of concern that if he did not incriminate the defendant, he himself would be charged with more serious offenses of money laundering. However, apart from the fact that the checks were drawn in the name of Gomaitum (and these checks were transferred to the defendant, as stated), there is no evidence in the evidence presented to me linking Arik to the offenses of money laundering. All the evidence in this regard points to the defendant. In these circumstances, the argument that in his testimony against the defendant Arik tried to evade more serious charges should be rejected.
- Arik testified that he gave the defendant the checks, the photocopies of which appear in Exhibit P/81. His reliable statements are supported by the many pieces of evidence regarding the continued handling of the checks by the defendant at the "HaShalom" exchange in Rishon LeZion, as well as the evidence regarding a meeting between the two in the parking lot of the IPS facility in Ramla on the morning of February 7, 2018, when later that morning the fifth check, No. 2009, the subject of the indictment, was deducted. I will refer to the following (after my reference to the transfer of the funds in cash). I will note that the checks, in large sums, are not linked to a particular project. However, the statement in the correspondence between Arik and the defendant regarding "order accounts and accounts", as well as Arik's testimony that the funds he transferred to the defendant were also for the conversion of future work, support the fact that the transfer of the funds was not done separately for each project.
- As for the transfer of NIS 70,000 in cash, in this matter there is a difficulty in determining that this is the amount that was transferred in cash. Although I give full confidence to Arik's words regarding the inflating of the price quotes for the purpose of transferring sums to the defendant and the actual transfer of the cash to the defendant, it appears from Arik's testimony that this is a cumulative sum and there is no information as to the number of times he transferred money in cash, the sums he transferred each time or the dates of the transfer. I will emphasize that Arik's testimony is reliable, but in the absence of the aforesaid details there is difficulty in determining that this is the amount that was transferred in cash. Indeed, Arik himself was also convicted of transferring the sum in cash to the defendant, but the conviction was following his confession, without the need to examine the evidence on its merits. I accept Arik's statement that he transferred money in cash to the defendant, in an amount not exceeding NIS 70,000. However, it is also possible that this is a lower sum, hence the difficulty in stating this amount in the framework of a criminal conviction.
- The defense denied the defendant's involvement in opening a customer card in the name of ZydePods and in deducting the five checks that are the subject of the indictment, and claimed that Arik approached the defendant for help in obtaining cash; Arik was the one who came to the exchange – accompanied by the defendant only for the first time; and Arik was the one who handed over the checks for discounting at the exchange and received the cash.
The defense's position should be rejected in light of the strong evidence available against the defendant with regard to opening the customer's card and deducting the checks.
- As for contacting the exchange and opening the customer's card in the name of Zyfood, the defendant himself admitted that it was his idea to contact his wife, who was already familiar with the change located in their city of residence, and she was the one who referred the defendant to Bezov from the exchange. The defendant also admitted that the couple had prior acquaintance with Zydpods and that he himself had a photocopy of the Zydpods' ID card. There is also no dispute that on that first visit to the exchange in which the customer's card was opened, the defendant himself arrived at the exchange.
- What is the explanation given by the defendant to his claim that Arik asked for his help in deducting checks? In the summaries of the defense, it was claimed that the defendant and Arik were in a friendly relationship, and that Arik told him that contractors of Arab origin with whom he worked were demanding payment in cash from him and that he had to find a way to do so (Arik did tell him about a trip to Russia that he was going to take, but it was not explicitly stated that he needed cash in this context). However, in his testimony in the main interrogation, the defendant denied any friendship with Arik. Moreover, while in the main interrogation the defendant claimed that Arik told him that he was working with Arab subcontractors who demanded payment in cash, in the cross-examination he claimed that Arik told him that he often traveled the world and played in the casino, and therefore needed cash. It is clear that these are completely different versions, which were also not mentioned in the response to the indictment, and thus we learn about the low reliability of the statements and of the defendant himself.
- The defendant's version of what happened at the change regarding the opening of the customer's card in the name of Zydepods raises many questions, in a way that leaves no possibility of trusting it. In his testimony (in the main interrogation), the defendant claimed that Bazov asked him at the change if he knew Zeidpods and if he had his ID card. The defendant recalled that at the change that he had a photocopy of this ID card in the file of the contract for the sale of an apartment, he only showed him the photo and did not give it to him. But this was not his version in response to the indictment, when he claimed that Bezov had asked him for a "Russian identity card." These are two puzzling versions of questions and demands on Bezov's part, none of which were explained. The defendant claimed that ZyPods already had a customer card at the exchange at that time, but Exhibit P/82 shows that the card was opened on July 4, 2017 and not earlier, and there is no logical reason for Zov to ask him for the identity card of Zydepods or the identity card of "Russian" – and Zov even denied raising these requests. The defendant claimed that Zov lied and that he had even threatened his wife, but did not elaborate or support this claim with evidence.
- Needless to say, the version according to which the defendant mentions that he holds Zeidpodim's ID card and "only" it to Bezov – is also puzzling and distrustful, to say the least. It seems that in the defense summaries an attempt was made to explain the matter: the defendant called Change, explained the "need", and in Zub replied that there was no problem, but that he needed to check whether the neighbor's card was still open. At this stage, we must ask, what is the "need" that was allegedly explained, which led to Zuv having to check whether ZydePods' card was still valid...?
According to the defense's summaries, after an examination it became clear that the neighbor's card had expired, there was once again a need for a photocopy of the ID card, and the defendant had a photocopy of the Zeidpods' ID card. This is a failed attempt. The reader is supposed to cry out at this stage: there is no connection, logical or legal, between Zeidpods and his ID card and our case. This is even if I accept the defendant's argument that Arik's need for cash is behind the matter (an argument that I reject outright). I will note that in our case there was no reference to the basic question – if Arik needed cash, why didn't he open a card in his name? What was the impediment to this? And why did the defendant take a risk for someone who is not even his friend?
- As for Arik, the latter testified that he had never visited the said change, and his testimony is reliable to me, as stated above (I will mention Arik's authentic response in his interrogation with the police when he was asked if he had come to the said change and broke his silence on this matter). In addition, Bezov also testified that he never met Arik, and that Arik was not located in Rishon Lezion on July 4, 2017, and on the other dates on which the checks were deducted, which is the subject of the indictment. I therefore accept the accuser's position that after the checks were transferred to the defendant, Arik's part in the affair ended and he had no part in the deduction of the checks in the exchange (except for the correction of the mistake in check No. 2009, the fifth check in the indictment).
- As for the deduction of the additional four checks in the months following the opening of the card, the defense summaries claim that a few months after the defendant's visit to the Exchange, he learned that Arik continued to use the exchange services for the purpose of deducting checks. While the summaries claim that this happened when the defendant entered the change to buy dollars for a family trip, in his testimony in the main interrogation the defendant claimed that it was when he visited a garage near the change and suddenly saw Arik there, who told him that he had visited the exchange. I have already rejected the defense's argument regarding Arik's involvement in the deduction of checks at the exchange, and therefore I will only note at this stage that this is another example of the multiplicity of versions that weakens the defendant's claims.
- On the other hand, there is evidence that the defendant continued to come to the exchange and deduct the additional checks that Arik gave him. The checks were deposited in the fictitious card that the defendant opened on July 4, 2017 (P/82). In addition, Bezov stated in his police interrogation that he had seen the defendant at least two or three times, and that he recognized the defendant in court without difficulty (while insisting that he had never seen Arik). Bezov himself confessed and was convicted of opening a fictitious customer card at the defendant's request using the ZeidPods ID card that the defendant provided him, deducted the checks, recorded the transactions as transactions on the fictitious card, and gave the defendant cash in return. He got into trouble himself and has no interest in incriminating the defendant.
- Additional evidence against the defendant regarding the deduction of the checks relates to the fifth check, check No. 2009, in the amount of NIS 24,376, which was deducted at the exchange on February 7, 2018, and the sum of NIS 24,248 was received in cash for him. That morning, the defendant was located near the change in Rishon LeZion, after he had previously been placed in Ramla (where Arik gave him the check). The next day, the defendant deposited cash in his bank accounts in the sum of NIS 21,000, and in a conversation with his defendant's wife, he told her that he had deposited about NIS 20,000 and that NIS 3,000 remained in cash at home – sums that amounted to almost the amount of cash received in the check discounting transaction. And of course, when the error in the registration of the check was discovered, Zeov turned to the defendants – and not to Arik – in order to handle the matter, and when the defendant approached Arik who handed him the check, and Arik asked him if the check was in his possession, the defendant replied that he had given the check on the same day he received it. In other words, it is clear from the defendant's statements in this conversation that the check was in the defendant's hands and that he "gave" it on the same day he received it from Eric. The continuation of the matter the next day (February 12, 2018) also indicates the defendant's central role in all matters relating to the discounting of checks at the exchange.
- In view of all of the above, I determine that the foundations of the offenses of bribery and theft by a public servant existed in our case, in relation to the sum of NIS 145,370.
- With regard to offenses under the Prohibition of Money Laundering Law, the defendant was charged with two offenses – an offense of money laundering under Section 3(a) of the Law (Multiple Offenses) with respect to checks deposited and an offense of false reporting under Section 3(b)(2) of the Law (Multiple Offenses) with respect to the fictitious card.
Prohibition of Money Laundering Stipulated in Section 3(a) of the Prohibition of Money Laundering Law: