It should also be remembered that Tavorinsky himself was convicted of bribery and false registration in corporate documents. His testimony is reliable to me.
- Hatuka testified that the defendant asked him, upon completion of the work, to issue an invoice stating that the work was the construction of a pergola in Neve Tirza, i.e., work for the IPS and not private work for the defendant. Hatuka stated in his testimony that he had told the defendant that he had already issued an invoice for a pergola in Neve Tirza in the past (and indeed, Hatuka built a pergola in Neve Tirza as detailed in the framework of indictment 5), but the defendant reassured him not to worry about the matter. Hatuka also testified that he did not know Tavorinsky and was not in contact with him. D.B.S. check. He received it through the defendant.
In the course of the hearing in Charge 5, I was under the impression that Hatuka wished to stick to the facts known to him. In the course of the hearing in Charge 8, too, I was impressed by the credibility of Hatuka, who did not deny his awareness of the false content of the invoice he issued, and described his attempt to avoid a situation in which the lie (the construction of a pergola in Neve Tirza) was unreliable (due to the fact that the pergola had already been built in Neve Tirza in the past). I will note once again that the defense did not point to an interest on the part of Hatuka to incriminate the defendant, since Hatuka confessed and was convicted of bribing the defendant.
Hatuka's reliable statements contradict the defendant's testimony, according to which he learned only in retrospect that Hatuka had issued an invoice to Tavorinsky.
- The correspondence between Hatuka and the defendant (P/22), in which Hatuka asked the defendant if there was anything new about the "check", strengthens the accuser's evidence regarding the defendant's active involvement in the coordination between Hatuka and Tavorinsky and in the transfer of the check to Hatuka. The defendant claimed in his testimony that the correspondence related to another check, which the contractor Klaus should have transferred to Hatuka for work on an IPS project, but shortly afterwards he confirmed that the check related to private work performed in his home.
This is when the defense did not point to any other work that Cuta did at the defendant's home at that time, Cuta was not asked about this in his testimony and no reference was made to the matter in the summaries of the defense. The defendant's argument that this was a correspondence with P/22 in another check is therefore to be rejected.
- As for the defendant's version, this is not a uniform and consistent version, but rather a variable version that leaves clear question marks regarding its main points. The response to the indictment is not detailed, and there are considerable differences between the defendant's statements to the police, his testimony and what is presented in the defense summaries and defense arguments, on the following matters:
Did the defendant ask Tavorinsky for a loan (as the defendant said to the police, for example, P/10B, transcript of the interrogation dated December 13, 2018, p. 60), or was it Tavorinsky who offered help (as the defendant said in his testimony in court)? In his cross-examination, when the defendant was asked if it was a loan, he answered in the negative, adding that he did not know that Tvorinsky would pay.