The work is the subject of an indictment 9:
- Klaus stated that he was not connected to the work that Cutka performed at the defendant's home (the construction of the pergola) in the summer of 2018, and that he had never met Cutka and did not know him (pp. 327, 360). The defendant told him to write a check for Cutta's order. Klaus gave the defendant a check for NIS 7,070 (pp. 327). However, Klaus denied that it was a bribe, and stated several times that he was supposed to build a roof in Rimonim Prison (pp. 326, 328).
- Since the defendant's version is that this was a loan he had given to Klaus, Klaus was asked in his testimony about the existence of loans between him and the defendant. Klaus initially replied that there was only one loan, but after refreshing his memory through his police interrogations, in which he stated that he had not received loans from the defendant, he confirmed these statements to the police and added that he had also not given loans to the defendant (pp. 343-344). In his testimony, Klaus confirmed his statements to the police (in his interrogations and in the confrontation with the defendant), in which he denied the claim that he had received a loan of $5,000 from the defendant in August 2018 (p. 346).
- When Klaus was presented with P/28 (photocopy of the check for the cut) and P/27 (photocopy of the invoice of the cut), both for NIS 7,070, Klaus stated that it was a "pergola of pomegranates". He handed the check to the defendant so that they would transfer it to the cut. On the invoice, Klaus wrote: "For the construction of a pergola." Klaus denied the claim that the check was given for private work to expand the canopy in the defendant's villa, and reiterated that he himself had paid for a pergola with pomegranates (pp. 361-362).
To the question of how he gave a check to Hatuka without knowing him, he replied that if it was a doubt, it should be respected and paid to him (p. 361). Klaus did not retract his statement even when the prosecutor noted Hatuka's statement, according to which, apart from working in 2016, he had never done any work in prison (p. 362).
- To the prosecutor's question as to whether the work at the pomegranates was carried out as of the date the check was given, Klaus replied that the work at the pomegranates was not carried out – as of the date of his testimony (p. 362). To the fact that Klaus testified that he did not receive a check for work at the pomegranates and that he was not supposed to work there at all, and that he received the check for private work for the defendant, Klaus replied that he had a bill of quantities and that everyone is invited to review it (p. 362). To the question of whether he lied when he admitted at trial that he had given the sum as a bribe, he again claimed that he had signed a plea bargain in order to end the affair. When he was asked to answer, he clarified that his words were true. He repeated that he had given the defendant a check so that he would give it to the pergola man, and that he did not know what they did with the check (p. 363). The prosecutor referred to the interrogation of November 19, 2018, in which Klaus stated, "I had to pay the cutter for Arkady," but Klaus replied that he did not refer to the payment for work at the defendant's home (p. 363). Klaus also noted that he was in front of three interrogators and that in such a situation he would tell them anything (p. 364). The prosecutor reminded Klaus that he had confessed at his trial and asked him why he was naïve in his testimony. Klaus had no answer to this (p. 365).
- At this stage, at the request of the prosecutor, and since the witness's answers in his testimony were different from his answers to the police, Klaus was declared a hostile witness (pp. 365-366). The prosecutor cross-examined him and accused him of being naïve. To the prosecutor's question as to whether Klaus's confession was true, Klaus replied that what he had signed was "fine" (p. 367). Klaus rejected the claim that he had brought the check to the defendant because of a financial debt to the defendant (p. 368). The witness claimed that from the outset he had said that the check was on a pergola with grenades (p. 368).
Cross-examination
- Klaus confirmed that his spouse had arranged a surprise flight for him to Cyprus, but denied the claim that the defendant had lent him money for the purpose of buying foreign currency for that trip (p. 372). He confirmed that he had known the defendant for many years. He himself did not work in the defendant's home (p. 372).
- When asked why he signed the check for the pergola, he replied: "As far as I'm concerned, the target is grenades, but... they have nothing about it... so that if they look at the bill of quantities, they will understand that there is a pergola here for grenades, there is a pergola in pomegranates..." (p. 374). When asked how he saw the invoice, a different appeal cut for the pergola, he replied that it was the policemen who showed it to him for the first time (p. 377).
- Klaus described the police interrogations as traumatic (p. 373). He did not review the interrogations before signing them (p. 377). The defense attorney raised the possibility that Klaus had confessed at his trial only to go home, and Klaus confirmed it (p. 373). The defense argued that Klaus had been offered a good deal of community service, told him that others had received an actual prison sentence and that he too might receive a harsher sentence if he managed the case, and advised him to accept the deal. Klaus did not respond substantively (p. 377). To the question of whether any party had threatened him not to withdraw from the plea bargain, he answered in the negative (p. 377).
Re-investigation
- Regarding the claim that he did not read his statements to the police before he signed them, the prosecutor referred Klaus to a note in the interrogation that at the end of the interrogation, at the time Klaus read the interrogation, Klaus wishes to state that he refuses to sign lines 113-118, claiming that he said these things to himself. In these lines it is written: "I had to pay the cutter for Arkady." Accordingly, Klaus did not want these words, according to which he paid the defendant, to be recorded in his mouth. When Klaus noted that he was detained at the time, the prosecutor corrected him that the interrogation took place on November 19, 2018, when he was no longer in custody (p. 381).
The Haganah Affair