The Prosecution Case
Testimony of Shlomo Hatuka (transcript of July 12, 2021)
Main Inquiry
- Hatuka is involved in charges 5, 8 and 9.
Engaged in the construction and repair of tiled roofs, pergolas and deck surfaces, in the "Argaman Roof and Roof Roofs" business. He was tried in the Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court for offenses of bribery and issuance of false invoices. He was convicted and sentenced to a fine of NIS 7,000 and two months of community service (p. 31). He began working with the IPS in 2005 or 2006, through the IPS's aluminum contractor Rafi Michaeli (Rafi Shutters) (pp. 31-32). As part of his work, he found out that the defendant was responsible for the work and the approval of the invoices (p. 32).
- The defendant invited Hatuka to make a roof for the entrance to Neve Tirza. Hatuka originally priced the work at about NIS 25,000 plus VAT, about NIS 29,250 (p. 32). He spoke with the defendant on the phone while he was writing the proposal and explained to him what he was going to do and what the cost would be. In the same conversation, the defendant asked him to change the price quote from NIS 30,000 to NIS 37,000, including VAT (p. 33).
In a previous work in Neve Tirza (the visitors' tent hall), they wanted to add a wooden floor at the end of the work, and there was a budget problem. Cuta thought that the defendant's request to increase the price quote was intended for a future situation of this kind ("some kind of goat"), so that they would not have to increase the budget if the need arose to expand the work (pp. 33-34).
- He received payment for the work from the IPS by bank transfer, after confirming the invoice he had submitted to the IPS (p. 34). After he submitted the invoice, the defendant contacted him and asked him to bring him, in cash, the sum of NIS 5,000 that he wanted to add to the price quote. Hatuka replied that as soon as he had the money in his hands, he could transfer it to the defendant (p. 34).
- After receiving the payment, Hatuka contacted the defendant and transferred him the sum of NIS 5,000 in cash. After refreshing his memory through his police interrogation on December 10, 2018, he testified that the two drove two vehicles to a certain point (Hatuka did not remember exactly where) and there Hatuka transferred the money to the defendant (pp. 35-36).
- In a WhatsApp correspondence dated May 24, 2016, the defendant sent Khota a message (the content of which is unknown since the exhibit contains the note "Media was not included"), and Khota replied, "Okay, you understand, the cost of five thousand, check if it is possible to invoice the work materials and tools that will be familiar to me, so that I can do it as soon as I receive a transfer, thank you." The defendant responded with the sign of a hand raised with a thumb up (P/22). Khota testified that he asked if he could receive an invoice for the money he was transferring to the defendant (p. 37).
- After this work, he no longer worked for the IPS. When asked why he acted as the defendant asked him to do, he replied that as far as he was concerned, the defendant was within the framework of the "power to approve the payment" and that he did not want to delay the payment for himself (pp. 37-38).
Cross-examination
- Hatuka was referred to his statement of January 7, 2018, in which he said: "What I remember is that I transferred the money to the defendant through a courier, we met in cars and I transferred it to him" (the statement was not submitted to the file). He testified that each of the two drove in his car to a certain place that they had coordinated and where the defendant received the money from him (p. 46). Hatuka did not remember whether the money was delivered in his own car or in the defendant's car, or during the day or in the evening, but noted that he did not think it was in the evening because the two usually met during the day (p. 46). To the claim that he had given a number of sums during the interrogation, one time NIS 5,500 and another time NIS 5,000, he replied that to the best of his recollection it was NIS 5,000. He did not remember whether he had withdrawn the sum from an ATM (p. 47). Hatuka was referred to the transcript of his interrogation of November 7, 2018, in which the interrogator told him, "Shlomo said it was in a meeting with friends," but he denied this in his testimony and added that the two had no mutual friends (p. 48). He was also referred to a previous interrogation on November 5, 2018, in which he did not remember many details, and to the fact that in the interrogation on November 7, 2018, he stated that he did not remember exactly the transfer of the money. To the defense attorney's question as to whether it is possible that the incident did not happen at all and that he tried to please the interrogator or that pressure was exerted on him, he replied in the negative, adding that there was no reason for him to distort the matter (pp. 49, 50).
Hatuka insisted that the transfer of the money was made at a meeting between the two and not through a courier (p. 51). Regarding the fact that he told the interrogator, "Write that I transferred it to him... I hope I am not mistaken and misleading," he explained that he did not want to say anything that was not true, but that the two did meet (p. 54).
- Regarding the fact that he told the interrogator on November 7, 2018, "I really appreciate your help, that is, in the matter of how things are worded," Hatuka was asked if the interrogator directed him or put words in his mouth, and insisted that he himself did the things and the interrogator did not dictate anything to him (pp. 53-55).
- To the question of whether he had asked the defendant for an invoice for the payment of a bribe, he explained that at the time he did not see the payment as a bribe. He agreed to increase the amount because in his previous work they wanted to make a certain addition to the work, he lacked a budget and it took time until the additional budget that was required was found (pp. 58-59).
- Hatuka denied the claim that the defendant asked for a profit of NIS 5,000 for communications work that Hatuka did not know how to perform, so that they could later pay this sum to a communications contractor (p. 58). Hatuka added that an IPS communicator carried out the work, submitted an account to the IPS and received payment from the IPS. The witness drilled holes in the wood for him in order to thread pipes (p. 59).
- The witness denied the claim that he understood that it was a bribe only when the plea bargain negotiations began, when he received legal advice and understood that he was facing an actual prison sentence. He understood that it was a bribe already in the first stage of the investigation, before it was presented by an attorney (pp. 65-67).
Testimony of Eli Yifrach (transcript of December 21, 2021)