The Defendant's Testimony
Main Investigation (Transcript of January 4, 2023)
- The defendant had a good working relationship with Tavorinsky, who, at his request, gave him the phone number of a contractor who engaged in low-voltage work (Genkin), for the purpose of repairing cameras in his home that had not worked for years. The defendant befriended Genkin, the two did not agree on a price in advance due to their friendship relations. Genkin carried out the work and demanded payment from the defendant, but the defendant did not think that he had to pay NIS 350 for a 20-minute visit, which was in fact an instruction. Genkin threatened him with the lawsuit and the defendant decided to pay and issue him an invoice from the defendant, since one of the rooms in the house was used as his wife's office (it seems that by these words the defendant was referring to Charge 7, which deals with work in the defendants' residential apartment – M. B.). The defendant paid by check or by invoice transfer, the matter was closed, but during the police interrogation the defendant found out that at the same time Genkin was working for Tavorinsky and told him that he had done a lot of work for the defendant and demanded the money from him. Tavorinsky did not say anything to the defendant, and paid Genkin the money (p. 528).
- The defendant confirmed that Genkin did not work for the IPS, and that he asked for Tavorinsky's help in finding a communications technician (p. 528). The defendant saw the invoice that Genkin had issued to D.B.S. only after he received the investigation material (p. 529). The defendant denied contacting Tvorinsky to pay Genkin and claimed that he had no influence on the division of the IPS's work. Tavorinsky was a main contractor, a concessionaire in the IPS, and the defendant had no influence on the provision of work to Tavorinsky (p. 530). He also claimed that no work was done in the motel, but only an upgrade (p. 529). He claimed that Genkin took advantage of Tavorinsky, who did not keep track of invoices (p. 529).
Cross-examination (transcript of March 22, 2023)
- The plaintiff referred to invoice No. 1089 issued by Genkin to Tavorinsky on May 29, 2016, for computer communications work at 2 Hemed St., Rishon Lezion (P/29). When asked to confirm that this was work performed on the property he owned, the defendant replied that he did not know what Genkin had spent and that he had never seen the invoice before he was exposed to the investigation material (p. 513).
- Genkin did not perform the work in the villa himself, but through an employee of his. The defendant did not know how to explain why Genkin lied and said that he did the work himself (p. 514). The defendant further claimed that in addition to the invoice that Genkin issued for the defendant, there was also a WhatsApp correspondence in which Genkin threatened him that if he did not pay him, he would involve an attorney. The defendant stood by his words even when the prosecutor clarified that the invoice and correspondence as described did not exist in the investigation material, and that the defense did not accuse Genkin of these allegations during his testimony in court (p. 515).
- The plaintiff referred the defendant to Exhibit P/30 – a payment approval form for the performance of the work by Genkin in Rishon LeZion, in which Tavorinsky attributed the work, which was not related to the IPS, to work in Hasharon Prison. The defendant testified that he was not familiar with the document (p. 516). As to Exhibit P/31 – the payment check to Genkin for the work in the motel, the defendant testified that he knew the document from the interrogation material, but not from a real time ago (p. 516). According to the defendant, Genkin was a subcontractor for Tavorinsky in other projects that are not related to the IPS (p. 516).
- The defendant stated that he did not know what happened between Genkin and Tavorinsky – what Genkin submitted to Tavorinsky and what he asked to record (p. 517). He denied Tavorinsky's statement, according to which the defendant covered a private debt to Genkin (p. 517), and insisted that he paid Genkin himself and that there was an invoice for this payment, which was transferred to the defendant's accountant (p. 519). The defendant did not pay Tavorinsky for the purpose of repaying payment for a private debt (p. 520).
Charge 6 - The accuser's summaries
- The accuser referred to the testimony of Genkin, according to which he performed private work in the defendants' villa and received payment for the work from Tavorinsky. His testimony is supported by exhibits P/29, P/30, P/31; the testimony of Michael, the chief engineer at D.B.S., who testified that the work performed was not for the company and that he did not approve it for payment; and the testimony of Tvorinsky, who admitted and was convicted of covering his private debt to Genkin for the defendant, at the request of the defendant, as part of his relationship with the defendant and in the framework of the defendant's position. The accuser further claimed that the situation speaks for itself.
- The accuser argued that the defendant's line of defense, according to which he paid Genkin, but Genkin also demanded payment from Tavorinsky, who paid him without discussing it with the defendant, should be rejected. It was argued that this line of defense was illogical, contradicted by Tavorinsky's incriminating testimony, and that the defendant had not the slightest evidence that he himself paid even a partial payment to Genkin – this was contrary to his statements in his testimony.
Charge 6 - Defense Summaries
- The defense denied the allegations against the defendant. The defendant received Genkin's number from Tavorinsky, during a routine meeting with him, and a few days later Genkin arrived at the defendant's home and explained to him about upgrading the existing communication systems in his home. These systems were installed in 2015 and since then various malfunctions have occurred and the defendant did not have time to deal with them. The defendant was impressed by Genkin, and a few days later Genkin arrived with a friend and within a few hours fixed all the malfunctions. Genkin demanded payment of NIS 1,300 for the work (the defense's summaries stated that this was a "reasonable price"), and the defendant paid immediately, in cash. He did not receive a receipt or invoice.
- The investigation materials revealed that after receiving the payment from the defendant, Genkin submitted an invoice in the amount of NIS 3,861 to DBSH. and received payment for the second time for the same work that he had already performed for the defendant. It was claimed that Genkin took advantage of D.B.S., and Tavorinsky, or any other party on behalf of D.B.S., did not speak to the defendant about this work. The defendant knew nothing about the fact that Genkin asked for and received payment for the work from Tavorinsky as well.
Charge 6 - Hearing
- There is no dispute that Genkin did indeed perform work in the field of computer communications in the villa owned by the defendants. According to the exhibits, Genkin issued an invoice to D.B.S. for the work in the villa, and Tavorinsky paid him for the work, after he attributed the work to a project in the IPS, even though it was not work performed for the IPS.
- Genkin did not remember the details of the incident. After refreshing his memory, he testified that he did indeed perform work in the villa, but he did not remember what the work entailed, he did not remember who paid him, he did not rule out the possibility that the defendant also paid him for the work, and he did not know whether the defendant had instructed Tavorinsky to pay him for the work. Genkin remembered that he had met only the defendant and not the defendant in the villa. It seems that Genkin sought to be precise in his testimony and explicitly stated that he did not remember or did not know how to answer the questions he was asked. I also got the impression that Genkin did not testify in a tendentious manner against the defendant.
It is important to note (and this relates to both this indictment and indictment 7) that the defense did not accuse Genkin during his testimony in court of the defendant's claims regarding the nature of the work that was performed, the amount that Genkin demanded from him, and Genkin's double request for payment – both from the defendant and from Taburinsky. This matter shows the weakness of the defendant's arguments and the truth in Genkin's words.