Main Inquiry
- In order to avoid repeating things that have already been brought, I will refer to the general sections of Tavorinsky's testimony in the main interrogation, in his testimony in the framework of Charge 6. These sections deal with Tavorinsky's role, his conviction in the framework of the affair, the manner of payment to subcontractors, and the defendant's authority to give works, make decisions and influence the amount of the retraining payment to a main contractor.
- The witness was referred to exhibits P/23 (the tax invoice of a cut in the amount of NIS 35,000 in honor of D.B.S. for "the construction of a pergola in Neve Tirza"); P/120 (check No. 5006461 in the amount of NIS 35,000 of D.B.S. for the cut for "pruning and removing trees of the Central District Unit"); P/24 (receipt of a cut for check 6461 for NIS 35,000 received from D.B.S.). The witness stated that he paid the cutter for a pergola in the defendant's house, at the request of the defendant (p. 762). To the question of why he did this for the defendant even though it was not work performed for D.B.S., he replied: "I did it, that's it." Even when he was told that he himself had been accused of bribery, he insisted at length not to answer the question of why he had paid for the defendant. However, after indictment 8 was read, Tavorinsky confirmed what was stated in it (p. 765).
- Tavorinsky was confronted with the defendant's statements in his interrogation with the police (dated November 7, 2018), according to which this was a loan that he asked for from Tavorinsky when he was in the midst of a divorce proceeding and was required to build a roof in order to move into the villa. Tavorinsky replied that he did not remember anything like this. To the question of whether he ever gave the defendant a loan, he answered in the negative (p. 765). With regard to another version of the defendant in the police, according to which it was in fact a "combination" that Tavorinsky and Cuta made, regardless of the defendant who was not aware of it, Tavorinsky denied this claim and added that he did not know Cutka before (p. 765).
Cross-examination (transcript of June 23, 2022)
- I will refer to the testimony of Tavorinsky in the cross-examination in Charge 6, regarding the defendant's authority to make decisions on construction matters in the IPS.
- The defense attorney argued that the defendant had paid the cutter for all the work done in the motel and did not intend that Tvorinsky would pay the cut, but that the defendant had told Tvorinsky about his problems, and that Tvorinsky had "grown his head." When Tavorinsky was asked if he remembered when the defendant returned the NIS 35,000 to him, he replied: "I don't remember anything like that" (p. 303).
Re-investigation (transcript of June 23, 2022)
- Tavorinsky had no acquaintance with Cutta, and he does not remember who brought the check to Cuta (p. 318).
- Tavorinsky's percentage of profit was determined by the IPS, and not only by the defendant (p. 319). However, in cases where Tavorinsky worked with the defendant, the defendant is the one who determined the percentage of profit (p. 319).
The Haganah Affair