In addition, the defendant was unable to explain in his statements to the police why he did not pay directly to the same friend of Klaus's who bought the phone for him.
The accuser claimed that the defendant's version was a suppressed and illogical version, contradicting the response to the indictment and the defendant's version of the police, which was not even hurled at Klaus at any stage as part of his testimony in court.
- After being declared a "hostile witness", Klaus confirmed his confession to bribery. This is the testimony of an accomplice to a bribery offense that does not require corroborating evidence.
First Incident - The Haganah's Summaries
- The defense denied what was attributed to the defendant. It was noted that in May 2018, the defendant told Klaus that he was traveling to Eilat with his wife to celebrate her birthday and that he was interested in buying her a mobile phone as a birthday gift. Klaus said that he had a relative who lived in Eilat and worked in the sale of cell phones, and recommended that the defendant buy it through her. Indeed, the relative brought the mobile phone, and the defendant paid Klaus 3, 800 shekels in cash, as he stated in his testimony to the police.
First Event - Discussion
- There is no dispute that the defendant and the defendant traveled to Eilat on the occasion of the defendant's birthday and that the defendant received a new mobile phone in Eilat from Klaus's relative. The question that needs to be decided is whether Klaus bore the ownership of the iPhone as part of a bribe he gave to the defendant, as the accuser claims, or whether the defendant himself paid Klaus for the device, as the defense claims.
- Although Klaus initially tried to claim that this was not a case of bribery (and thus it can be seen that there was no incriminating tendency in his testimony), he later confirmed that everything attributed to him in the indictment was true, and that it was indeed a bribe. In the course of the hearing in Charge No. 9, I determined that the accuser was able to prove the existence of a relationship of Klaus's dependence on the defendant and that Klaus was motivated to please the defendant so that the latter would assist him in obtaining jobs in the IPS. Klaus is the defendant's accomplice in the offense, and his testimony is sufficient for the purpose of convicting the defendant of the offense of bribery.
I will add that Klaus also denied in his testimony the possibility that the check he discussed with the defendant was related to the purchase of an iPhone.
- The defendant stated to the police that he paid Klaus NIS 800 in cash after his return from Eilat 4 (transcript P/2B, p. 180), but in his testimony he gave a contradictory version, according to which he paid Klaus in two checks, one in the sum of NIS 3,800 before the trip to Eilat, and the other to supplement the balance of NIS 4,500, after his return. There was no real explanation for the contradiction between the versions, and he even denied the existence of a discrepancy between the versions, except for inaccuracies regarding the amounts. It is clear that in his case there is not only an inaccuracy regarding the amounts, but a material discrepancy as to the manner of payment claimed to Klaus. The multiplicity of versions obviously affects the reliability of the statements, and I will also mention that this was denied by Klaus. However, this was not enough, since in its summaries the defense decided to re-adopt the defendant's statement to the police regarding the payment in cash, while completely ignoring the defendant's testimony in court, without further explanations. The transition from one version to another, and back to the first version, speaks for itself.
- In view of all of the above, I categorically reject the defense's arguments and hold that the accuser was able to prove what was attributed to the defendant in the first incident.
Second Event