Charge 9 - Testimony of the Defendant
The work is indicted 9
Main Investigation (Transcript of January 4, 2023)
- The defendant knew Klaus when the latter was renovating an apartment with the defendant's neighbors. Klaus performed two jobs in the IPS as a subcontractor.
The work in the motel that is the subject of the indictment was carried out in May 2018 (and not in July 2018 as stated in the indictment). The defendant approached Hatuka, and Hatuka issued an invoice to D.B.S. on his own; the defendant had nothing to do with it (p. 539). The defendant also did not instruct Klaus to issue an invoice to Klaus (p. 540). He denied that he had approached Klaus to withdraw a check in favor of Hatuka to cover the defendant's personal debt, and he also denied that he had received a check from Klaus for Hatuka (pp. 540-541).
- The defendant stated that Klaus was not an IPS contractor, but an occasional contractor, who had done one job, and not at the defendant's request, because he had no salary to work for the IPS. The defendant said that at that time he had returned with his wife from abroad (Batumi) and had a foreign currency left. He told Klaus that he would give him the money and that Klaus would return the money to him in shekels. About two months passed and he did not hear from Klaus. The defendant needed renovation of his house, due to a leak. He asked Klaus to serve as the contractor coordinating the renovation. The defendant asked to choose ceramics, etc., for the renovation himself, and asked Klaus to pay the other suppliers and contractors (including Cut) and in this way Klaus would repay the loan. The defendant was arrested before Klaus returned the full amount (p. 541).
- The defendant confirmed that while he was abroad, Khota called him and asked the contractor to pay him. The defendant asked Khota to coordinate directly with Klaus. Klaus and Klaus arranged to meet at the house where the renovation was taking place, and there Klaus gave Klaus the check (p. 542).
Cross-examination (transcript of March 22, 2023)
- This is another work by Cuta in the villa, which includes enlarging a roof at one of the entrances on the ground floor of the villa. The defendant was referred to a correspondence dated July 19, 2018, in which the defendant wrote to Cutta: "Invoice to D.B.S. Tavorinsky Ltd. (and address - M.B.)", while his version in the main interrogation was that Cuta had written an invoice to D.B.S. on his own initiative. He did not receive such an instruction from the defendant. In response, the defendant insisted that Cuta had issued an invoice to D.B.S. on his own initiative (p. 538). The defendant was also referred to the fact that he had instructed Cuta to write "Roofing of an entrance in an existing building" on the invoice, to the fact that he replied that there was no need to specify a location, as well as to the correspondence dated July 30, 2018, in which he asked Cuta if there was anything new about the check, and to the correspondence dated August 20, 2018, in which the defendant asked Cuta to remind him of the amount. The defendant confirmed that he remembered the correspondence regarding the check (p. 538). The defendant was also referred to the tax invoice that Cutta issued in honor of D.B.S. On July 22, 2018 (Exhibit 25) and to the cancellation of this invoice (P/26). To the claim that Cuta canceled the invoice after the defendant instructed him to do so, and instead issued an invoice to Klaus, the defendant replied: "Correct. There could be confusion here..." (p. 539, and also on page 541).
- As to his statement to the police on November 7, 2018, according to which he initially wanted to take a loan from Tavorinsky but eventually asked for a loan from Klaus, the defendant claimed in his testimony that this was a mistake, because he did not take any loan from Tavorinsky or from Klaus (p. 540). In response to the claim that he gave three different versions, to the police, in response to the indictment and in his testimony in the main interrogation, the defendant reiterated that there was no connection to Tavorinsky in our case (p. 541).
- The defendant claimed that Hatuka carried out the work in the villa through a main contractor. On the claim that this was a new claim and that it was not clear how it was related to the matter of a main contractor, when the work was carried out in his home and he had direct correspondence with Hatuka, the defendant reiterated that he was a main contractor and claimed this in all his interrogations (pp. 541-542). The plaintiff referred to the fact that in Hatuka's cross-examination, the defendant's defense attorney at the time did not raise the claim that Hatuka worked for Klaus as a subcontractor.
The defendant claimed in response that this is how he defines the relationship, even if it is not a formal relationship between a main contractor and a subcontractor (p. 542).
- As an explanation for the different version he gave to the police, regarding a loan he wanted to ask for from Tavorinsky, the defendant stated that he had apparently been confused by the police and that he was still suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (p. 543). When he claimed that he wanted to please his interrogators, he was asked why he did not confess to what was attributed to him then. The defendant did not reply to the merits of the matter (pp. 543-544).
- The defendant claimed that Klaus and Klaus lied when they testified that they did not know each other (p. 547). When asked if he confirmed that he had told Klaus to cancel the first invoice in order to issue a new one to Klaus, he replied that he did not know that Klaus had issued an invoice (p. 547).
- The plaintiff presented the defendant with the contradiction between his various versions regarding the delivery of the check to the cutter in the defendant's penthouse (in response – denial that Klaus had arrived and received the check from the housekeeper; in the main interrogation – Klaus gave the check to the cutter in the penthouse; in the cross-examination – Klaus arrived at the penthouse with the check but did not have time to wait and therefore handed the check to the housekeeper (p. 548)). The defendant was asked why he gave different versions that make it difficult to determine reliability, but he did not answer the merits of the matter (p. 551).
- The prosecutor asked about call No. 5260, the first in a series of conversations on the day the check was collected, in which Hatuka called the defendant and asked when he could meet with him (and not with Klaus). The defendant did not confirm this, and claimed that there were other conversations that indicate that he told Klaus and Klaus to close it between them (pp. 551-552).
- To the claim that Klaus had denied the issue of the loan several times on the witness stand, the defendant replied that Klaus was lying (p. 552). The defendant had no answer to the fact that the defendant's defense attorney did not accuse Klaus during his cross-examination that he was lying, the defendant had no answer (pp. 553-554).
General about the relationship with Klaus