Later in the conversation, the defendant says to Klaus, "You have to tell me how much it costs and what it costs and write down all this," Klaus replies to the defendant that he will prepare it and send it to him, and the defendant responds: "I will look, add things or take things down, I don't know what and that's what you say, it comes up like this." The defendant claimed in his testimony that his words had nothing to do with the IPS project, but I will already note that there is no logic in his words (p. 516).
Charge 9 - The accuser's summaries
- The accuser referred to the testimonies of Hatuka and Klaus. Klaus, the bribe-giver, confessed and was convicted in the indictment, and in his testimony at trial, he confirmed that he had paid a bribe to the defendant by covering the defendant's private debt to Hatuka. The accuser is aware of Klaus's twisting in his testimony at trial, but in addition to the fact that he repeated that he confessed and confirmed his confession, he rejected all the alleged defense theses that tried to explain why he paid Hatuka for private work for the defendant.
- The accuser also refers to the correspondence between the defendant and Cut, to the recordings of the telephone conversations between the two (including conversations dated September 20, 2018 regarding the coordination of the delivery of the check), to the invoice that he issued to D.B.S. and to the cancellation of the same, to the invoice that Cutta later issued to Klaus and other documents.
- The accuser pointed to the defendant's multiple versions of this indictment, since the police stated that he wanted to ask for a loan from Tvorinsky and finally asked for a loan from Klaus, in response to the indictment, he denied that a contractor had paid her a loan, while in his testimony he claimed that he had lent money to Klaus and Klaus returned the loan to him by financing the defendant's private expenses.
- The accuser further notes that Klaus rejected the explanation given by the defendant for the payment to the cut – the repayment of the loan. Klaus testified that he did not receive any loan from the defendant and did not give him a loan.
As for the thesis that arose during Klaus's testimony that this was a payment for a cut for work in the IPS at Rimonim Prison, beyond Klaus's admission that it was bribe money, there was no evidence in the evidence that Klaus had received work building a pergola in Rimonim Prison. The defense is presumed that if there had been such evidence, it would have submitted a request to receive the relevant documents.
- In addition, it was claimed that the defendant's version that Hatuka's work in the defendant's home was part of a renovation for which Klaus was responsible was denied in terms of schedules. While Hatuka carried out the pergola work as early as May 2018 and "pursued" the defendant to receive payment for the work until September 2018, the renovation work in the defendant's home was due to the explosion of a pipe in the penthouse in September 2018.
- The accuser claimed that there was a relationship of dependence between the defendant and Klaus and that Klaus sought to give a gift to the defendant with the intention that the defendant would continue to assist him in converting jobs in the IPS and maximizing his profits as part of his IPS work. The accuser referred to various pieces of evidence, including recordings of phone conversations between the defendant and Klaus during 2018, which she said supported this claim.
Charge 9 - Defense Summaries
- The defense denied the allegations against the defendant. It was claimed that in 2018 the defendant decided to carry out a renovation of his house, which included installing a roof at the entrance to the house, building plasterboard corks, replacing flooring and plumbing accessories, and replacing parquet in the bedroom. The defendant approached Klaus to be the main contractor for the renovation. The cost of the renovation is NIS 24,040 (of which NIS 7,070 is the cost of the awning). Klaus paid the construction contractors and suppliers, and at the end of the project he received his profit – 10% contractor profit, NIS 2,500. Therefore, Klaus received a check from Klaus, as Klaus's execution contractor, against an invoice he gave to Klaus.
- The defendant's approach to Klaus was not accidental. A few months earlier, Klaus had told the defendant that his wife had surprised him and booked a flight abroad for a family event, but there was no cash to buy dollars. The defendant offered Klaus ₪5,000 that he had left over from a family trip abroad. Klaus was happy and said that at the first opportunity he would make sure to return his money to the defendant. A few months later, the defendant approached Klaus about the debt (about NIS 17,500) and offered him to offset his debt by renovating his house. Klaus agreed.
Since the defendant was arrested, he did not have the opportunity to pay Klaus the balance of the payment at the end of all the work.