Cross-examination
- Yossi reiterated that he confessed to a wrong act he had committed and did not profit from it ( 153-154). The witness was interrogated by the police twice in the framework of this affair and was suspected of offenses of fraudulent receipt. An indictment has not yet been filed against him. To the question of whether he is subject to the prosecution's decision on the matter, he replied that he did not know (p. 155).
- The witness clarified that there were two brick work in the defendant's home. One in 2015 and the other in 2018, as part of the renovation of the children's room (p. 158). The witness rejected the claim that there was only one brick work (p. 159). To the argument that there were indications that the brick work was carried out in the middle of 2016 and not in 2015, he replied in the negative (p. 177). It should be noted that such indications were not presented to the witness and to the court.
- The witness rejected the possibility that the sum of NIS 3,000 for the brick work was not included in the sum of NIS 60,170 at all, and explained that he knew this because the sum did not correspond to the sum that had been discussed in advance (p. 164). When he filled out invoices, he usually did not write a detail, but only a general amount. He did the same with the invoice in question. In addition, he noted that he did not write that the bricks were included in the invoice because everything "came as a surprise at the time of the check" (p. 173).
- The witness denied the claim that the defendant paid him in cash for the brick work in 2015 without the witness issuing an invoice (p. 162). It is inconceivable that he forgot that he received a payment of NIS 3,000 from the defendant (p. 172).
- Yossi rejected the claim that the defendant had no connection with subcontractors, and insisted that he had received the checks physically from the defendant (p. 157). To the claim that during the police interrogation he said that he did not know who instructed him to write down the invoice for his work in the IPS, while in court he stated that it was the defendant, the witness replied that he had said the same things in the police as well ( 165-166).
- To the question of why he entered into another transaction with the defendant after he saw that the defendant was breaking the law and violating the values that the witness believed in, he replied that he did not have a job at the time and that the defendant convinced him (p. 162).
- When asked why the defendant, who, according to the witness, committed an offense, would risk and conduct a defense in another legal proceeding in court against his accomplice, he replied that the reason lies in the fact that he has no proof, since everything was done with a handshake (p. 175).
- In summarizing the testimony, the defense argued that the defendant had paid the witness NIS 3,000 in cash, and presented two possibilities – the witness forgot that the payment had been made or that the witness was deliberately trying to slander the defendant. The witness categorically denied the allegations (p. 173).
The Haganah Affair