I will also note that document P/165, which the defendant received from Rauf, strengthens the existence of a prior agreement that the payments from Tavorinsky would be used to repay the defendant's debt to Rauf.
The defendant's lies that he did not even know about Rauf's employment by Tavorinsky, at least strengthen the prosecution's evidence against him, including the evidence regarding his awareness of the fictitious employment and the receipt of the bribe. It should also be noted that the defendant had no other explanation as to why Tavorinsky paid Rauf for his fictitious employment and why Rauff sent him the document A/165.
I am therefore of the opinion that the prosecution succeeded in proving the defendant's awareness of the fictitious employment and the receipt of the bribe.
- In view of all of the above, I determine that the accuser met the burden of proving what is stated in the tenth indictment, and that in the acts described in this indictment, the defendant, in his act as a public servant, took a bribe in the sum of NIS 66,220, for an action related to his position.
Charge 11
The Indictment
- At a date that is not known to the accuser, at the end of 2015, Yossi Yaakov (hereinafter: "Yossi") performed private work of installing 4 square meters of bricks for wall cladding in the defendant's penthouse at a cost of NIS 3,000 (hereinafter: "the private work"). During this period, Yossi worked as a subcontractor in the IPS, while he was subordinate to the defendant.
- Moving on to December 13, 2015, the defendant dictated to Yossi the pricing of the work on the IPS project that Yossi had executed under the main contractor of the Mahlab Company, in the sum of NIS 60,170.
- On or about December 13, 2015, the defendant met with Yossi and handed him a check for the execution of the project, in the sum of NIS 60,170 (hereinafter: "the check"), which Yossi deposited in his bank account. On the same date of delivering the check, the defendant informed Yossi that the amount of the check also included the payment for the private work.
- In his aforementioned acts, the defendant, as a public servant, stole something that was the property of the state or something that came into his possession by virtue of his work, and valued it at NIS 3,000 (an offense under section 390 of the Law). In addition, in his aforementioned acts, the defendant, while being a public servant in the performance of his duties, committed an act of fraud or breach of trust that harms the public, even if the act did not constitute fraud if committed against an individual (an offense under section 284 of the Law).
The Response to the Indictment 11
- The defendant denied the charges against him in this charge.
Charge 11 - Evidence