In the third incident, the defendant confirmed what was stated in this indictment, according to which the payment to the "Fried-Meir" store for products purchased by the defendant for the renovation of his apartment was made through Klaus, as part of the payment of Klaus' debt to the defendant, as a result of a loan that Klaus took from the defendant.
The Evidence
First Event
The Prosecution Case
Klaus's testimony (transcript of September 22, 2022)
Main Inquiry
- Klaus confirmed that everything stated in the indictment in relation to this incident was true (p. 328).
In conversation No. 3147 of May 6, 2018 between the defendant and Klaus, Klaus wanted his check from the defendant, and the defendant told him to collect the check from the cleaner at his home. Klaus clarified in his testimony that it was a check from a contractor that the defendant should have given him (pp. 368-369). Later in the conversation, Klaus told the defendant that he needed the room number and the name of the hotel and that he would close "it." Klaus testified that it was a phone that appeared in the first incident of indictment 12. When asked why it should have been arranged for the defendant, he replied that it was a friend, and that it was not a bribe (p. 369). When the prosecutor reminded him that in his own trial he confirmed that the phone was a favor, Klaus confirmed it in his testimony (p. 369).
Cross-examination
- The defense attorney asked Klaus if he had received payment for the iPhone and suggested a scenario of a friend traveling to Eilat and buying an iPhone for a friend who asks him to do so because there is no VAT in Eilat. Klaus replied that when he said this to the police, they did not believe him (p. 374). Klaus confirmed that the incident created a disconnect between him and the defendant (p. 374).
Re-investigation
- In the re-examination, Klaus confirmed that he had given the phone as a bribe (p. 383).
The Haganah Affair
The Defendant's Testimony
Main Investigation (Transcript of January 23, 2023)
- The defendant testified that Klaus offered him to buy an iPhone in Eilat, from a relative who runs a store and can give him a discount. The defendant drove to the store and collected the phone. The defendant paid Klaus the entire sum (NIS 3,700), and noted that Klaus said this in his interrogation of October 12, 2018 (pp. 502-503).
Cross-examination (transcript of March 27, 2023)
- The defendant was referred to call No. 3147 of May 6, 2018, in which he spoke of a check that Klaus should receive from the defendant (see Klaus's testimony above). The defendant testified that it was a check for the purchase of the phone. To the question of whether it was a check from the IPS, he answered in the negative (p. 518).
- Call No. 3161 of May 6, 2018 - The defendant confirmed that he had spoken to Klaus about the mobile phone he had asked for for his wife and that he was nervous because he wanted the phone to arrive (p. 519). When he returned the money to Klaus, he replied that he had given him a check before he purchased the phone, in the sum of about NIS 3,800. After he returned from Eilat, Klaus told him that it was a more expensive model that cost about NIS 4,500, so the defendant gave him a check for the difference (p. 519). According to the claim that at the time of the phone call, the defendant was already on his way to Eilat and had not yet brought the check to Klaus and had not even left the check with the cleaner, he replied that he had left the check with the cleaner (p. 519). According to the claim that in his interrogation with the police, he stated that he had paid Klaus the sum of NIS 4,800 in cash after he returned from Eilat (P/2, interrogation of November 4, 2018, Q. 678, 691), he replied that the police were not accurate and that it could be heard in the telephone conversation that the check related to the purchase of the phone (p. 520). When he was asked to explain the discrepancy between his version in the police and his version in court, he did not agree that there was a discrepancy in the amounts, except for an error in the amounts (p. 521).
First Incident - The Accuser's Summaries
- The accuser referred to the sequence of wiretapping conversations, in which on the one hand Klaus wanted the defendant to take care of him for payment from the IPS, and on the other hand, the defendant pressured Klaus to arrange for him to buy a new phone for the defendant as a birthday present while they were celebrating in Eilat. The accuser also referred to the fact that Klaus confirmed in his testimony that the purchase of the phone for the defendant was part of the bribe payments.
- The defendant contradicted himself in his various versions. At the police he claimed that he paid Klaus 4, 800 shekels in cash after he returned from the couple's vacation in Eilat, but in his cross-examination he claimed that he had paid Klaus by check, and that the check in question was the check he had discussed with Klaus on the phone.
However, the defendant did not present any evidence that he paid by check, and when he was asked about the check and whether it was not a payment that Klaus received for his work for a main contractor in the IPS, the defendant claimed that he had nothing to do with the transfer of checks for payment to contractors. This was while Klaus explained in his testimony that the check in question was the check that the main contractor had given to the defendant in order to deliver it to him.