The total amount of the sums specified in the document is NIS 67,240 (₪18,408). Rauff deducted this sum from the amount he lent to the defendants (₪28,600), and the result was ₪10,192 (p. 411).
Exhibit P/166 shows the seven pay slips that the witness received from D.B.S., which were also extracted from the extraction of the defendant's mobile phone. The amounts in the pay slips correspond to the amounts specified in P/165 (p. 412). These are pay slips for the months of 8/2016, 11/2016, 12/2016, 2/2017, 5/2017, 7/2017 and 8/2017. Three of them include payment for an additional month: the 11/2016 slip also includes a breakdown of salary, travel and premium for the month of 10/2016; the 2017 slip includes this type of detail for the month of 1/2017 as well; the 5/2017 slip includes this type of detail for the month of April 2017 as well.
- The defendant helped Rauf get the job at D.B.S. (p. 412). When asked why Tavorinsky employed him, the witness replied that there were a number of reasons for this: Tavorinsky needed an employee, he was interested in knowing the witness's knowledge in the field, and the fact that the defendant called him gave him motivation (p. 414).
- As part of his work routine at D.B.S., the witness and Tvorinsky examined various projects together, talked about future projects and raised many questions about techniques (p. 414). The two spoke to each other in Hebrew (p. 414). The witness did not remember how many times he had met with Tavorinsky. After refreshing his memory through his interrogation with the police, he replied that it was about 20 times, and added that he came to the company's offices once or twice a week (p. 415). However, the pay slips stated that he worked 24 or 25 days a month.
To the court's question whether he worked 25 days a month or twice a week (about 8 days a month), he answered that 8-9 days a month more than 25 days a month (p. 415). Rauf lived in Rishon Lezion and traveled to D.B.S. to Nazareth and later to Afula, about once a week or 6-8 times a month (p. 416).
- Rauff was asked about the fact that the pay slips stated that he did not work in certain months, in which he claimed to work, and about the fact that he received two months' salary in one slip. He replied that in September 2016 he studied in the ulpan, and that he did not remember why he did not work in March and June 2017 (p. 417). According to him, in Russia, receiving one pay slip for several months is normal (pp. 416-417).
- On a typical work day, he arrived in his car from Rishon LeZion, a drive of about two hours. He does not remember how many hours he worked each day. He did not sign an attendance clock. He arrived at Tavorinsky's office and went out with him to the field (p. 418). When asked why he did not say so during the interrogation, he replied that the interrogation did not go into detail (p. 418). He used to sit with Tavorinsky about his projects and explain to him what could be done with them (p. 419). His memory was refreshed by the police interrogation, in which he stated that there was something secret in the construction on the one hand, and on the other hand, Tavorinsky helped him. In his testimony, he explained that he was referring to the secrets of the profession. When asked what he taught Tavorinsky, he replied that "I think I taught him many things if he paid me such sums" (p. 419).
- To the question of why he reduced the amount he received from Tavorinsky from the defendant's debt, he replied that if the defendant thought that this was how he would repay the debt, at least he should repay him the remaining part (which was not paid by Tavorinsky) (p. 421). To the question of whether the defendant told him that this was how he was repaying the debt, the witness denied this and replied that he had said the words "with emotion." He assumed that the defendant thought so, because he helped him get hired (pp. 421, 426). The prosecutor referred to Rauf's statement to the police, according to which he asked the defendant for the money and the defendant told him that he had helped him with Tavorinsky and because of this help he asked him to give up the money (p. 427).
- Rauf stated that he received the checks "either from his wife or from him," and clarified that they were Tavorinsky and his wife (p. 423). The witness's memory was refreshed by his interrogation at the police, in which he stated that he first received checks from the defendant and then from Tavorinsky. The witness confirmed that this may have been the case. Of the 6-7 checks, the defendant gave him one or two checks (pp. 423-424).
- The witness was asked why Tavorinsky wanted to employ him, when they were in D.B.S. excellent engineers, while Rauf is a new immigrant who does not speak fluent Hebrew, lives about a two-hour drive away and arrives only intermittently, and also why he himself did not want to work closer to his home. Rauf replied that no one wanted to employ him at that time (p. 424). His memory was refreshed by his statement to the police, where he stated that no one wanted to employ him because he did not speak Hebrew and that Tavorinsky hired him because the defendant had asked him. The witness added that he had provided Tavorinsky with building secrets, and that the defendant was a friend of his (Rauf's) (pp. 425-426). The prosecutor referred the court to the defendant's interrogation on December 13, 2018 (p. 72), in which the defendant confirmed that he had received a loan from Rauf (p. 428).
- The prosecution did not seek to declare Rauf a hostile witness. Rauf's statement to the police P/167, CD P/167A and transcript 167B were submitted to the court file.
Cross-examination
- The defense argued that there was no evidence of the transfer of the sum of money to the defendants, and then Brauf argued that it was not a loan, but rather a transfer of funds for the benefit of an investment. Rauff rejected both of these arguments (pp. 434-439). In view of what is stated in the defense summaries (below), that the defendant asked Rauf for a loan for the purpose of renovations and that he transferred the money to him, without claiming that the money was transferred for the purpose of investment, I do not see the need to detail the investigation in this matter.
- To the question of why he signed a lease agreement with the defendant in 2015 if the defendant owed him money, the witness replied that this was due to the fact that he needed an address in Israel (p. 440). In practice, he did not give the defendant checks as part of the agreement (p. 441).
- When it was claimed that Tavorinsky needed a witness as an engineer in order to raise the company's contractor classification, but stopped the employment because he understood that the witness did not hold the appropriate license, the witness replied that it was possible that this was the case (p. 442).
- Rauff confirmed that he wrote P/165 himself and on his own initiative. He confirmed that he thought that if he asked for a less large sum there would be a greater chance of receiving it (p. 443).
Rauff asked the defendant to find him a job, this was his initiative (p. 447).