Criminal Case (Center) 6040-07-20 State of Israel v. Arkadi Shkovitzky - part 57

The Defendant's Testimony

Main Investigation (Transcript of January 4, 2023)

442. The defendant testified that during the period relevant to the indictment, December 2016, he went through divorce proceedings and lived in a small room of 10 square meters. Tvorinsky met him about work, told him that he had heard that he was in an unusual situation and offered help. The defendant refused his offer and told him that he had hired a contractor (Cutta) who had enlarged the room, that the two (the defendant and Cutta) had not yet agreed on a price, and that Cuta had told him to pay when he had money. Cuta arrived at the villa, saw children with cancer receiving treatment, and also donated a hammock to the place. Cuta asked to speak with Cutta, even when the defendant did not know the price, and told the defendant to return it to him when he had money. Cut spoke with Cutta, and then Cuta informed the defendant that the account had been closed. According to the defendant, Hatuka "didn't know who Doron was, he told me that your friend gave me a check." Two or three months later, the defendant's situation improved, he received a money transfer from a friend in Russia, and returned the money to Tavorinsky. The defendant noted that he could not "influence Doron's work and could not give or not give," and at the same time noted that "it could be a failed conduct" (p. 533).
443. Later, the defendant noted that in retrospect it turned out that Tavorinsky and Hatuka had agreed on a sum of NIS 35,000 and that Hatuka had issued Tavorinsky an invoice. Tavorinsky did not tell the defendant about this. When the defendant asked to pay Hatuka, Hatuka replied, "Don't worry, your friend has closed the matter with me" (p. 534).
444. The defendant approached Tavorinsky in order to return the aforementioned sum to him. In one of his meetings with Tavorinsky, he paid him the sum. However, the defendant later saw that Tavorinsky did not mention this in his testimony. In the defendant's opinion, the reason for this was that Tavorinsky brought it into his bookkeeping, as he had done with Genkin, something that he should not have done (p. 535). The cut had nothing to do with the pruning work mentioned in the indictment (p. 534).
445. The defendant denied what was stated in the indictment, according to which Hatuka came to the defendant's office and there the defendant handed him the check for D.B.S. and asked him to issue a false tax invoice for the construction of a pergola in Neve Tirza. The defendant does not know what was written in Hatuka's invoice. Hatuka does not know where his office is located and he cannot come to his office without an entry permit (p. 537). The defendant also denied the claim that he gave Hatouka the false tax invoice of Hatuka (p. 538). The defendant added that he returned the money to Tavorinsky at the defendant's office, about a month after the completion of the construction of the roof at the defendant (p. 539).
446. To the fact that according to indictment 5, Hatuka carried out a roof in Neve Tirza in April 2016 as a subcontractor, the defendant replied that Hatuka worked for the IPS as an independent contractor and not as a subcontractor (p. 534). He does not belong to the IPS in terms of tenders, and the defendant did not invite him to do work in Neve Tirza, but the prison invited him (p. 535).

Cross-examination (transcript of March 22, 2023)

447. The defendant testified that Tavorinsky told him that he would pay the contractor and that the defendant would return it to him when he had the opportunity to do so. The defendant gave Tvorinsky the contractor's phone (p. 524).
448. The plaintiff referred to the defendant's statement in the police interrogation on November 7, 2018, according to which he had asked Tavorinsky for a loan to build the roof. In response, the defendant claimed that Tavorinsky had offered to help, and that he had returned the money to Tavorinsky even before the latter had paid her (pp. 525-526). When he was told in the main interrogation that he had paid back the sum after two or three months, the defendant explained that he meant that he had transferred the money even before the check was paid (p. 526). The prosecutor referred to the fact that even in the interrogation on December 13, 2018, after he was released from detention, the defendant reiterated that he had asked Tavorinsky for a loan. However, the defendant insisted on his statement regarding Tavorinsky's offer of help and the return of the money even before the check was paid (p. 527). The prosecutor also referred to the defendant's statement in the main interrogation, according to which it was only in retrospect that the defendant learned that Tvorinsky had paid the cut (and also the price agreed upon between Tavorinsky and the cut).

The defendant reiterated that he did not know what Hatuka and Taborinsky had made between them, but that when he told Cutuka that he now had money to pay, it turned out that Cutuka had received the check from Tabourinsky, and then the defendant hurried to return the money to Taborinsky (p. 527).

449. Hatuka lied when he testified that the defendant told him to falsely write in the tax invoice that the work was done for an IPS project (p. 528). The defendant denied that Hatuka received the money through him (p. 528).
450. The prosecutor referred to Exhibit P/22, a transcription of a WhatsApp correspondence between the defendant and Cutta, and to the fact that in a message dated February 1, 2017, Cuta asked the defendant if there was anything new about the "check" (pp. 528-529). The defendant explained that this was not a check that was the subject of the indictment, but rather a different matter: "Because at the same time Cuta did renovation at work, not Cut, Assi Klaus did work and Cuta was part of the contractors who did the work, so Assi Klaus did not pay Cutta..." (pp. 528-529). The defendant confirmed that this matter was also in February 2017. To the question of why Hatuka did not contact Klaus directly, the defendant replied that the work was done at his house, and confirmed that it was a check for work performed in his home (p. 529). I will note that in indictment 9, there is mention of another work in the defendants' motel, which was performed by Hatuka and Assi Klaus, but the same work was performed in July 2018, and therefore the correspondence dated February 1, 2017 regarding the payment check does not relate to that work.
451. The plaintiff referred to exhibit P/103, according to which D.B.S. attributed Hatuka's tax invoice No. 1416 to a tree pruning project in the Central District. The defendant was asked if he was familiar with this, and he answered in the negative (p. 530).
452. The defendant was asked about the fact that in the interrogation on November 7, 2018, he claimed that there was a combination between Cuta and Hatvorinsky, and that only afterwards, in the confrontation between the defendant and Cutta, did the defendant change his version and said that Cuta had indeed paid Cutta, but that it was a loan that had been repaid even before the check was repaid.

The defendant's response was that it was indeed a loan, initiated by Tavorinsky, and that he had no information regarding what had happened between Tavorinsky and Chucha with regard to the registration in the invoice and in the company's books (pp. 530-531).

453. To the question of whether the answer to Charge 8 was incorrect, since in the framework of which the defendant denied that he had paid or requested to pay Cutka for work in the villa through Tavorinsky, the defendant repeated the explanation that he did not ask for it, but that Taborinsky paid and received back the money from him before the check was paid (p. 532). Later on, the defendant was forced to admit that Hatuka received money from Taborinsky for the work in the defendant's private home, and hence the relevant sentence in the response to the indictment is erroneous (p. 534).
454. In Hatuka's cross-examination, the defense attorney at the time, Adv. Ehrenfeld, claimed that the defendant was in a difficult financial situation and that Tavorinsky's payment was a loan. To the plaintiff's question as to whether it was indeed a loan, the defendant replied in the negative, adding that he did not know that Tavorinsky would pay (p. 534). The defendant denied Hatuka's statement that he did not know Tavorinsky and did not speak to him or meet him, and that he received the check from the defendant, at the same time that he handed the tax invoice to the defendant (p. 534). The defendant insisted that Tavorinsky lied when he claimed that he had paid the defendant a bribe (pp. 534-535). The prosecutor noted that the defendant's defense attorney did not cross-examine Tavorinsky at all about whether there was a loan or any payment, and that the significance of the matter was that at that stage the defense claimed a combination and not a loan. The defendant replied that the registration of the work as a project in Neve Tirza was apparently done in Tavorinsky's combination and cut (p. 535). The defendant claimed that he returned the money to Tavorinsky in cash, at the defendant's office (pp. 535-536).

Charge 8 - The accuser's summaries

455. The accuser referred to her evidence: the testimony of Hatuka, according to which he built a pergola in the defendant's villa, for which he received payment from Taburinsky, whom he did not know, and the check was given to him by the defendant, who instructed him to record in the tax invoice that the work was done for the IPS; the testimony of Tavorinsky, who admitted the facts of the indictment, denied giving a loan to the defendant and testified that he paid for the work at the defendant's request, and that he did not know Hatuka and handed the check to the defendant so that they could transfer it to Hatuka; the testimony of Hasidian, according to which there was no pergola work in the said project of pruning and removing trees in the Central District; The prosecution exhibits submitted as part of the indictment, including the correspondence P/22 between the defendant and Hatuka.
456. The accuser emphasized in her summaries that the defendant gave different versions regarding Charge 8. While in response to the indictment he did not provide any details, in his testimony he claimed that Tavorinsky and Hatuka had talked and closed the matter between them, and that Hatoka told him that he had received a check from his friend (Tavorinsky). During his interrogation with the police, he stated that he was the one who contacted Tavorinsky and asked him for a loan in order to pay Hatoka for his private work, due to his difficult financial situation at the time.

Charge 8 - Defense Summaries

457. The defense denied the allegations against the defendant. It was noted that in 2017, in a routine meeting with Tavorinsky, the defendant poured out his heart and told Tavorinsky about his personal situation, the divorce he was going through, and the state of the foreclosures in the bank accounts. The defendant told Tavorinsky that he lived in a 12-square-meter apartment with a balcony and that he needed to assemble a roof for the balcony in order to increase the size of the unit, and contacted the cutter to build a canopy for him. Tavorinsky offered his help, asked what price he demanded for a cut, the defendant replied NIS 35,000 and Doron replied that he would pay the cutter for the awning, against an invoice, and at the opportunity the defendant would return the money to him. The defendant agreed to accept Tavorinsky's help and undertook to return the money to him at the first opportunity. Tavorinsky told Cuta to write an invoice for D.B.S., and Cuta did so, and all this without the defendant knowing about it, but only during the legal proceedings.
458. A few days later, Tavorinsky brought the check to Hatuka and took an invoice from him. Tavorinsky wrote on Hatuka's subcontractor's card a project that had never been carried out at the Neve Tirza Medical Center. The defendant is unable to know how DBS conducts itself with regard to documents and subcontractors' cards. In order to extricate himself from his wrongdoing and the risk of canceling the plea bargain, Tavorinsky gave the defendant's name.
459. On February 25, 2017, after the defendant received money from a friend named Oleg Kovalov, the defendant paid the debt to Tavorinsky, before he repaid the check he had received from Tavorinsky. It was noted that the affidavit in this regard is found in the affidavit of the main witness on behalf of the defendant, which was attached as Exhibit N/1. I will already note that Exhibit N/1 is a photocopy of a pergola. It appears that the reference is to the "Notice of Submission of Affidavits and Expert Opinions", which was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court in the framework of Exhibit 24693-09-20 and contains hundreds of pages, and was filed on behalf of the defense in this proceeding as well (and marked as Exhibit N/6). This was not mentioned, but it seems that the reference is specifically to the "approval" of Kovalov Oleg, which was attached to Appendix 3 to Exhibit N/6 (which will be discussed later in Charge 15). However, this "approval" refers to the fact that the defendant is entitled to manage Kovalov Oleg's funds, and there is no mention that the money was used to repay a debt. In any event, it is clear that this reference is not a substitute for bringing defense witnesses and testifying them in court.

Charge 8 - Hearing

460. There is no dispute that Cutka built a pergola on the balcony of the motel, as part of private work for the defendant, at a cost of NIS 35,000, and that Cutka received payment for his work through Taborinsky (D.B.S.). The main question that arises in our case is whether this is a bribe as alleged in the indictment or whether it was a loan that Taborinsky gave to the defendant who was in financial difficulties.
461. Tavorinsky testified that the defendant asked him to pay the cut and that it was not a loan. In his testimony, Tavorinsky also denied the claim that this was a "combination" between him and Cuta that the defendant did not know about, and emphasized that he did not know Cuta beforehand. When the defense presented him with the argument that the defendant did not intend that Cutta would pay Cutta, and asked if he remembered when the defendant returned the sum to him, Taborinsky clarified that he did not remember anything of the kind. It can be seen that the defense's argument that this was a loan that was repaid, did not receive any evidentiary support, and was even concealed, in Tavorinsky's testimony.

I will mention that Tavorinsky saw the defendant as an authority in the field of division of labor, decision-making, and influence over the amount of the retraining payment to the main contractors, in a manner that explains his motivation to give the defendant bribes.