Criminal Case (Center) 6040-07-20 State of Israel v. Arkadi Shkovitzky - part 53

The Prosecution Case

Testimony of Genkin (transcript of July 12, 2021)

399. In his main interrogation, Genkin confirmed his signature on P/32 - Invoice No. 1181 of Lanttanna (Arik Genkin) in the amount of NIS 8652.15 (including VAT), dated August 29, 2016, issued to D.B.S., for "communication work, computers, cameras, billing, including installation and warranty for parts, not including camera infrastructure." After refreshing his memory through his interrogation with the police, he testified that the work was carried out in the defendants' penthouse, which is located not far from the villa (the hotel). He does not remember who invited him to do the work and who received payment at the end of the work. A person on behalf of D.B.S. did not supervise him (p. 81). He received payment from D.B.S. Exhibit P/33 is a photocopy of the check he received to cover invoice No. 1181 (p. 82). When asked what his connection was with the defendants, he replied that there was no connection. They are the customer and he is the supplier (p. 83).

Testimony of Michael Hasidian

400. In his main interrogation, Hasidian was asked about Genkin's tax invoice (P/32), and he replied that he did not know to which project the work belonged (p. 575).

Testimony of Doron Tavorinsky

401. Tavorinsky testified in his main interrogation that he paid the payment to Genkin for invoice P/32, at the request of the defendant (pp. 761-762).

The Haganah Affair

The Defendant's Testimony

Main Investigation (Transcript of January 4, 2023)

402. According to the defendant, "Charge 7... It actually belongs to the previous charge because it was done on the same day" (p. 530). As for the work that was performed, the defendant claimed that he had approached Genkin for the purpose of repairing the security cameras in his home, which had stopped working (p. 531). The defendant paid NIS 400 for the work, and the expense was recorded as part of the expenses of his defendant's wife's office (p. 531).
403. The defendant denied that he had approached Tzvorinsky and asked him to pay to cover part of his personal debt to Genkin. The defendant did not know that Tavorinsky had paid Genkin (p. 532).

Cross-examination (transcript of March 22, 2023)

404. The defendant reiterated that the work in the penthouse included only an upgrade of an existing system, which he paid Genkin and did not know what Tavorinsky paid him (p. 521). The payment was made by bank transfer, while the payment in the framework of indictment 6 was made in cash. The prosecutor referred the defendant for interrogation on December 13, 2018, in which he stated that he had paid Genkin by check. The defendant replied that he had apparently paid by check (p. 522). The defendant insisted that he had a reference for the payment ("If it's a bank transfer or a check, what difference does it make? I have an invoice" – p. 522).

Charge 7 - The accuser's summaries

405. Similar to indictment 6, the evidence is based on Genkin's testimony that he performed private work in the defendants' penthouse and received payment from Tavorinsky for it; the exhibits submitted to the file (P/32 and P/33) that corroborate Genkin's testimony; Tavorinsky's testimony that he paid Genkin for the said work, at the defendant's request.
406. The defendant contradicted himself regarding the means of payment through which he claimed to have paid Genkin for the work he performed, when in his testimony in court he claimed that he paid for the first job (in the framework of indictment 6) in cash and for the second job (in the framework of indictment 7) by bank transfer, contrary to what he claimed in his interrogation with the police, that he paid by check. The defendant claimed in his testimony that he may have been confused, but that he had a tax invoice. Despite the statements of the defendant and the defense attorney, the defendant did not submit any invoice or evidence of the defendant's payment to Genkin.

Charge 7 - Defense Summaries

407. The defense denied the accusation against the defendant. At the end of 2016, the cameras in the defendant's home stopped working, and the defendant turned to his friend Genkin to fix the malfunction in the cameras. Genkin did not show up, but sent another person to do the work, and a few minutes later the cameras returned to work. The defendant called Genkin to thank him for a professional and quick repair, but was sorry to hear that after a 20-minute repair he had to pay almost NIS 415. Unlike the case that is the subject of indictment 6, the defendant asked to receive a tax invoice and register it in the name of the defendant's company, since the business offices are located at the defendants' home at 28 Zalman Shazar Street. After arguments and correspondence on WhatsApp, the defendant wrote a check and paid Genkin. The defendants did not receive a physical invoice, but only saw a photocopy of the invoice in a message on the phone.
408. In retrospect, it emerges from the investigation file that in this case as well, Genkin, after receiving payment from the defendant, contacted D.B.S. and received an additional payment for the work – NIS 8,652. Had the defendant known about this, he would have intervened and prevented it. The defendant never contacted D.B.S. with a request to pay for it. During his interrogation at the police, the defendant was surprised to hear about the double payment. The defense claimed that D.B.S. was conducting himself in the field of document management.

Charge 7 - Hearing

409. Even in the framework of this indictment, there is no dispute that Genkin performed (himself or through an employee) work in the penthouse, issued an invoice for the work to D.B.S. and received M.D.B.S. payment for the work. Genkin testified that there was no special relationship with the defendants, beyond being a customer and a supplier. In this indictment as well, Genkin did not contradict in his testimony the defendant's various claims regarding the small scope of the work and blatant exploitation on the part of Genkin, who allegedly demanded double payment, both from the defendant and from Tavorinsky. As I have already noted in the course of the hearing in indictment 6, this shows the weakness of the defendant's claims and the truth in Genkin's words. Genkin's testimony is reliable to me.
410. Taburinsky's testimony regarding the payment to Genkin for working in the penthouse at the defendant's request, as well as his motivation to pay the defendant's debt (things cited above in the framework of indictment 6), as well as exhibits P/32 and P/33, support Genkin's testimony and what is stated in the indictment.
411. As for the defendant's version, in this indictment there are almost no discrepancies between the defendant's testimony and what is stated in the defense summaries, but it can certainly be seen that the details that appear in both of them do not appear in the response to the indictment, and it is a suppressed version.
412. Both in the main interrogation and in the cross-examination, the defendant was referred to the specific charge: the defendant was referred to Charge 6, and after the investigation in this matter was exhausted, he was referred to Charge 7. However, at certain points it appears that the defendant did not completely separate the two charges, and thus, for example, during his testimony regarding Charge 7, the defendant also returned to Charge 6. I will note that according to the defendant, these are two matters that occurred on the same day, but from the dates of the invoices and checks it appears that this is not the case – in the sixth charge the invoice and check are from May and June 2016, while in the seventh charge the invoice and check are from August and September 2016. The defendant's claim that these were two events from that day remains unclear.
413. In any event, the defendant's version of the two charges included striking similarities: work smaller than described in the indictment; a relatively minor labor cost (NIS 350 in Charge 6, NIS 415-400 in Charge 7); In both counts, the work lasted about 20 minutes, and in both cases the defendant was surprised that he had to pay Genkin the sum of NIS 350-415 and believed that this was a high payment; in both cases, the defendant paid Genkin; in both cases, he received a reference for payment by the defendant's business. The defendant's version in Charge 6 was found to be unreliable. In the matter of indictment 7 as well, the defendant did not present any evidence that he paid Genkin, concluded his version until the date of his testimony, and did not confront Genkin with his claims regarding a small scope of work and taking advantage of the situation in order to receive payment from two different parties (it should also be noted that Genkin, who testified that he had no contact with the defendants beyond that of a client and a supplier, did not contradict the defense's claim that there was a friendly relationship between the parties). In addition, the defendant's version was contradicted by Genkin and Tvorinsky, and as I have already noted in Charge 6, the claim that Tavorinsky paid Genkin without the defendant knowing about it, raises a clear question – why would Tavorinsky do this? The defense did not provide any answer to this.
414. In view of all of the above, I determine that the accuser met the burden of proving what is stated in the seventh indictment, and that in the acts described in this indictment, the defendant, in his act as a public servant, took a bribe in the sum of NIS 8,652 for an action related to his position.

Charge 8

415. In December 2016 or thereabouts, at the defendant's request, Hatka performed private work in a motel at a cost of NIS 35,000 (including VAT).
416. As part of the work as a main contractor vis-à-vis the IPS, on December 6, 2016, Tavorinsky and D.B.S. submitted a price quote to the IPS for pruning and tree removal work for IPS Central District units in the amount of NIS 107,914.95 (including VAT).
417. On December 25, 2016, the price quote was approved as part of the Order No. 4501321148 project, and on January 3, 2017, D.B.S. tax invoice in the amount of NIS 107,915 that it carried out the work as part of a 4501321148 order project of pruning trees in the Central District units.
418. At the end of the private work in the motel, or thereabouts, the defendant approached Tavorinsky and asked him to pay NIS 35,000 for the private work he had done in the motel.
419. Tavorinsky, with the aim of giving a gift to the defendant in light of his position in the IPS and in light of his desire that the defendant continue to assist him in his work with the IPS, inter alia, as detailed in the general part of the indictment, in view of the defendant's ability to control the contractual profit and convert the work to the DBS company, agreed to the defendant's request.
420. Pursuant to the aforesaid, on or about January 8, 2017, Tavorinsky transferred to the defendant, by himself or through another person, a check No. 6461 in the sum of NIS 35,000 with a deferred due date of March 31, 2017, drawn on D.B.S. in the hands of a cut (hereinafter in this indictment: the "check"), as payment in the amount of NIS 35,000 for the private work that Cuta performed in the defendant's motel.
421. Pursuant to the above, on February 8, 2017, a few days after the completion of the work at the motel, Hatuka met with the defendant at the defendant's office, where the defendant handed the check to Hatuka.
422. At the same time, in accordance with the defendant's request, Hatuka issued a false tax invoice No. 1416 dated February 8, 2017, according to which he had performed work in the amount of NIS 35,000 (including VAT) for the construction of a pergola in Neve Tirza as part of his work for Tavorinsky and the D.B.S. company. This is despite the fact that no work was carried out for Tavorinsky or the D.B.S. company, nor was any work carried out in the IPS and/or IPS detention facilities.
423. Subsequently, Tavorinsky received the false tax invoice from the defendant and recorded it himself or through someone else in the bookkeeping books of DBSH. As part of DBSH's expenses. As payment to subcontractors in the framework of the "Tree Pruning in the Central District" project No. 4501321148. The total amount of expenses to be paid to the subcontractors in the framework of the project was NIS 86,400 (including VAT), in such a way that the contractor's profit of D.B.S. was 20% of the total project.
424. In his aforementioned actions, in his activity as a public servant, the defendant took a bribe in the amount of NIS 35,000 for an action related to his position.

Tavorinsky's case has ended as stated, and therefore there is no need to detail the indictments in his case.