In the matter of this offense, see the court's words in Criminal Appeal 2333/07 Ta'anach v. State of Israel (July 12, 2010, paragraphs 140-142):
"Alongside the offense of bribery, the offense of fraud and breach of trust serves as a central criminal norm in the framework of the defense of the order of government in the state. It goes to the heart of the relationship between the public servant and the public he is intended to serve. This relationship is fundamentally built on the public's trust in the employees who act on its behalf, and it is a cornerstone in maintaining a normal social life. The offense of fraud and breach of trust is a 'framework offense,' the factual foundations of which are defined at a high level of abstraction, and therefore case law dealt with defining its normative boundaries and boundaries (Criminal Appeal 20/53 Neiman v. Attorney General, IsrSC 9 845 (1955); Criminal Appeal 151/66 Geisler v. State of Israel, IsrSC 20(2) 447, hereinafter: the Geisler Case; Criminal Appeal 281/82 Abu Hatsira v. State of Israel, IsrSC 37(3) 673, 705 (1983), hereinafter: the Abu Hazira Case; Criminal Appeal 121/88 State of Israel v. Darwish, IsrSC 45(2) 663; The Barzel Case, at p. 569; Criminal Appeal 7318/95 Zionist v. State of Israel, IsrSC 50(3) 793, hereinafter: the Zioni Case; Criminal Appeal 4148/96 State of Israel v. Ganot, IsrSC 50(5) 367, hereinafter: the Ganot Case; High Court of Justice 7074/93 Suissa v. Attorney General, IsrSC 48(2) 749, hereinafter: the Suissa Case; Criminal Appeal 332/01 State of Israel v. Shimon Sheves, IsrSC 57(2) 496 (2003)). In the Supreme Court's judgment in another hearing in the Sheves criminal case, the Supreme Court (by President E. Barak) shaped the foundations and boundaries of the offense. These determinations will be guided by an understanding of the elements of the offense and their application to the circumstances of this case.
- Three protected values are at the foundation of the offense. The first value is the preservation of the public's trust in public servants. The second value is the integrity of public servants. The third value is ensuring the proper functioning of the public administration.
Although these three values are at a varying level of abstraction, they combine into an overarching value that deals with the protection of the public servant's duty of loyalty to public service, and a promise that 'the power of the government will not become the rule of force' (Sheves Criminal Justice, at para. 32; for the essence of the protected values, see also Additional Hearing 3/82 Grossman v. State of Israel, 36(1) 771 (1982); The Suissa Case, at p. 777; The Mercado Case, at p. 502; The Zioni Case, at pp. 803-804; M. Kremnitzer, v. Ben-Or, D. Navot, A. Fuchs, and G. Wertheim: Critical Examination and Recommendations for Improving Legislation (2008)). However, each of the three protected values stands on its own, in such a way that even if only one of them is harmed, the perpetrator can be held criminally responsible (Case of Additional Criminal Hearing Sheves, at paragraph 32)."