I will therefore conclude that I believe that Genkin's words can be trusted.
- Tavorinsky confessed and was convicted in part of Charge 6. His testimony was characterized by a conspicuous lack of cooperation, and even after he admitted to paying Genkin, he again tried to claim that he did not tell the defendant that he had paid Genkin for the work he performed at the defendant's villa. However, in the end, Tavorinsky confirmed in his testimony that the defendant had asked him to pay his debt to Genkin. The telephone conversations between Tavorinsky and the defendant and Tavorinsky's testimony indicate that he saw the defendant as a senior official with the authority to make decisions in the IPS, to give work to contractors and to influence the amount of the reinstatement fees, and the witness even directly confirmed in his testimony what was stated in the indictment regarding his motivation to bribe the defendant.
- As for the defendant, the discrepancy between the short and laconic response to the indictment, which included only a general denial that he had asked Tavorinsky to pay for the communications work in the villa, and what was stated in the defendant's testimony, as well as the differences between the defendant's testimony and the defense's summaries, say, and in this case, even cry out, demand. While the defendant stated in his testimony that Genkin demanded an excessive payment of NIS 350 from him and threatened him with a lawsuit (and his confused statements, which indicate that he paid by bank transfer or check), the defense summaries claim that Genkin demanded a payment of NIS 1,300, which was described as a "reasonable price," which the defendant paid immediately in cash. This is a clear multiplicity of versions, the gap between them is large and substantial, and this has a direct impact on the defendant's credibility. The very fact that both versions were captured and raised at a later stage, without any mention in the response to the indictment, also indicates their weakness.
- The "invoice" that he issued to Genkin and the correspondence in which Genkin threatened him – the defendant did not submit to the exhibits file. In view of the obvious difficulty in accepting the defendant's statements, there is also great doubt as to the very existence of this alleged evidence. The defendant is presumed that if this evidence existed and could have supported his claims, the defendant would have submitted it to the court, however, the defendant did not present any evidence that he himself paid Genkin.
- I reject the defendant's argument that Genkin received payment from him but also approached Tvorinsky in order to receive a double payment, and that Tvorinsky paid him without informing the defendant about it. The defendant's claim, beyond being part of a multitude of shaky versions on his behalf, is contradicted by the testimonies of Genkin and Tvorinsky. The very claim that Tvorinsky agreed to Genkin's alleged demand and did not approach the defendant on the matter is also illogical.
- In view of all of the above, I determine that the accuser met the burden of proving what is stated in the sixth charge, and that in his actions described in this indictment, the defendant, in his act as a public servant, took a bribe in the sum of NIS 3,861, for an action related to his position.
Charge 7
- In August 2016, or thereabouts, the defendant wanted to replace the security camera system in the penthouse apartment in which the defendant and the defendant lived at 28 Zalman Shazar Street in Rishon Lezion (hereinafter: "the penthouse").
- For this purpose, the defendant approached Genkin, who arrived at the penthouse and performed work of replacing the camera system, installing a communication cabinet and a power supply, which Genkin installed in one of the bedrooms.
- Prior to the completion of the work, the defendant contacted Tvorinsky and arranged with him that he would pay to cover part of his personal debt to Genkin.
- At or near the end of the work, Genkin issued a tax invoice No. 1181 for D.B.S. NIS 8652.15 as of August 29, 2016, for installation and warranty for spare parts, not including the cost of the camera infrastructure he installed.
- In accordance with the defendant's request, within the framework of the dependency relationship described in the general part of the indictment, and with the aim of giving the defendant a gift so that he could continue to assist him in carrying out work in the IPS, and maximizing his profits as a contractor in the IPS, Tavorinsky granted the defendant's request to cover the defendant's personal debt to Genkin.
- Tavorinsky, himself or through someone else, withdrew a check numbered 5009168 from D.B.S. NIS 8,652 and transferred the check to Genkin for Genkin's work in the penthouse. Tavorinsky recorded the expense of the check, either by himself or through someone else, in the report of the accounting ledger of DBSH. As an ongoing commitment to the supplier of Genkin for various works for the year 2016.
- In his aforementioned acts, in his activity as a public servant, the defendant took a bribe in the sum of NIS 8,652 for an action related to his position. The provision of the law according to which the defendant was charged is taking a bribe (an offense under section 290(a) of the law). Tavorinsky's case is over, and therefore I will not relate to the offenses attributed to him.
The Response to the Indictment 7
- The defendant denied the charge, according to which he asked Tavorinsky to pay for communications work carried out by Genkin in the penthouse he owned.
Charge 7 - Evidence