Charge 5 - Defense Summaries
- The defense denied the allegations against the defendant. Hatuka's initial offer was NIS 32,000, after he was invited to Neve Tirza Prison by the prison administration. After the price quote was received, a demand was also received by the Security Department to install a low-voltage system in the filtration cell, and for this purpose the defendant asked to add NIS 5,000 to Hatuka's offer, including VAT, after contacting the District Liaison Officer Doron Yaakov and asking him for a price quote. NIS 5,000 is a reasonable sum for two cameras with infrastructure, two doors with an electric lock and control through control, and two intercom systems for communication. All stages of the project were open and under the supervision of the unit.
- Cuta is inconsistent as to the amount he transferred to the defendant – one time he stated NIS 5,000, another time NIS 5,200 and another time NIS 5,500.
- Hattuka's request to a low-voltage contractor to issue him an invoice, for materials or tools, so that this would be recognized as part of the business expenses, confirms the defendant's version regarding an additional NIS 5,000 for low-voltage work for the Neve Tirza project.
Charge 5 - Hearing
- There is no dispute that the defendant asked Cuta to increase the price he gave, to the sum of NIS 37,000. The defendant explicitly confirmed this in his testimony in court, and there is no dispute about this in the defense summaries either. The reason for the increase in the amount is the issue in dispute.
- According to Hatuka's testimony, the defendant asked for an increase in the amount and for it to be transferred to him, in cash. Hatuka testified that he had met with the defendant and that he had given him the cash. Although Hatuka did not recall all the details of the encounter in his testimony, he noted that the payment of the sum was made at the point where the two arrived in two separate vehicles, apparently during the daytime. I got the impression that Hatuka wanted to be precise and stick only to the facts known to him, and did not provide details that he was not sure of (the same was true later on, when he replied that he did not know whether the defendant had pocketed the sum he had transferred to him). Even if in his statements to the police Hatuka mentioned slightly different sums (the difference between which is not large, and I will mention again that his statement to the police was not submitted), in his testimony in court he insisted that the amount of the bribe was NIS 5,000. As for the defense's argument regarding Hatuka's request to receive an invoice, Hatuka's statement was addressed to the defendant and did not mention the work of a low-voltage contractor.
- Hatuka explained that he did as the defendant said because he saw the defendant as part of the "power to approve the payment." Even before that, he testified that in the course of his work, he learned that the defendant was responsible for the work and for approving invoices. Although the defendant claimed in his testimony that he had no influence on Hatuka's work in the IPS, he confirmed that he made sure to approve Hatuka's price quote.
The defense did not point to an interest on the part of Hatuka to incriminate the defendant, and Hatuka confessed and was convicted, and paid a price, for bribing the defendant.
- On the other hand, the defendant claimed in his testimony that following his contact with the district liaison officer, he told Hatuka to make an increased offer of NIS 37,000, so that Hatuka would pay NIS 5,000 to the subcontractor for low-voltage works. There are a number of problems with this version, the first of which is that it was raised at a later stage – the stage of the defendant's testimony. In the police interrogation and in response to the indictment, this version was not presented. In response to the indictment, it was denied that the bid had been inflated, and nothing was said regarding the increase in the price for payment for low-voltage work. In the police, the defendant referred to the balance for aluminum work. This is therefore a suppressed version that cannot be explained for its pressing, and therefore its weight is low. However, this is not enough.
Later in his testimony, the defendant claimed that another budget was found for low-voltage work and that Cuta was left with a surplus of NIS 5,000 in his hand, when at first he claimed that Cuta had done nothing with this sum and immediately afterwards he said that he had instructed Cuta to submit a low bid for another project, deducting NIS 5,000 from the proposal. Needless to say, all of the above additional details were not mentioned prior to the defendant's testimony. Moreover, the defense refrained from confronting Cuta with this version of the defendant, and also refrained from bringing the district liaison officer to testify. Failure to bring witnesses to allegedly support his version is the defendant's obligation. The fact that the defendant did not accuse Hatuka during the confrontation with the police that he was lying, but rather claimed: "I don't remember, I don't believe it happened," weakens the defendant's version. It would have been expected that the defendant would come out strongly against Hatuka if it had been a matter of lies, and I do not accept in this context (nor in other contexts) the defendant's general argument regarding the circumstances of his arrest (see the discussion of the matter in the last part of the judgment).
- The defendant clearly tried to distance himself from Hatuka's proposal. The defendant claimed that he preferred aluminum construction and the proposal of Rafi Shutters, and that it was the prison administration that approached Hatuka and preferred his proposal to be executed with wood. However, from the testimonies of Hatuka, Yifrach Vaknin, the opposite picture emerges, according to which the prison administration approached Hatuka in order to receive a proposal and brought about the approval of his proposal. The defendant refrained from bringing to testify the Neve Tirza commander at the time, Sara Friedman, who, according to him, preferred to carry out the project in wood rather than in aluminum. It therefore appears that the defendant was the one who evacuated Hatuka and brought about the approval of his proposal. This strengthens the accuser's argument with regard to the position of power of the defendant and the motivation of the defendant to give a gift to the defendant.
- I therefore reject the defendant's argument as to the reason for the increase in the sum and accept the accuser's argument in this matter. I give credence to the testimony of Hatuka and determine that the defendant received from him a sum of NIS 5,000 following the inflating of Hatuka's price quote. In the defendant's case, the foundations of the offenses of taking bribes and theft by a public servant are met.
I therefore convict the defendant of the charges against him in Charge 5.