The defendant confirmed that Klaus had brought a check to Yaniv (p. 535). When asked whether Klaus had physically brought him (the defendant) Yaniv's check, the defendant replied that he did not remember. When the defendant was confronted with the fact that the check was seized in his home during a search and presented as evidence, the defendant confirmed the matter, having no choice but to do so (p. 535).
Second Incident - The Accuser's Summaries
- The accuser claimed that the defendant had changed his version in his testimony. While in response to the indictment he claimed that Klaus had paid with his check for Yaniv's work as part of the repayment of a loan he had taken from the defendant, in the course of his testimony in court he claimed that the manner in which Klaus's loan was repaid was that he had taken Klaus as a professional to carry out renovations in the penthouse, and in this way sought to offset the loan debt. It was argued that this lie of the defendant further complicated him, since Klaus had nothing to do with the renovation work in the penthouse, which required the work of a plumber – which had nothing to do with Klaus's area of expertise (the accuser noted that the defendant had discussed plumbing repairs with another party – Arik Shaked). The accuser referred to the defendant's police interrogation on November 1, 2018 (P/1B, p. 13), in which he stated that Klaus had nothing to do with the renovation being carried out in his home.
- The accuser also claimed that there was no connection between Yaniv and the work in the penthouse, and that there was no acquaintance between Yaniv and Klaus. In a desperate attempt to settle everything, the defendant claimed that Yaniv and Klaus had been working together to this day, despite the fact that they both denied any connection between them.
Incident 2 - The Defense's Summaries
- The defense denied the allegations against the defendant in this incident. It was claimed that in the summer of 2018, a water pipe exploded in the bedroom of the defendant's home, and the latter approached Klaus in order to fix the explosion and also to avoid dealing with a number of professionals, and asked Klaus to coordinate the entire renovation issue under him, including the replacement of parquet.
- The defense attached to its summaries a table detailing the work carried out and the payments, which is presented below:
- The defendant agreed with Klaus that he would manage the workers, thus allowing Klaus to repay the defendant's debt of ₪5,000. At the end of the renovation, the defendant was left with a balance to pay Klaus of NIS 3,500, but since he was arrested, the defendant did not pay the balance.
Event 2 - Discussion
- There is no dispute that Klaus issued a check for Yaniv for private work performed by Yaniv in the defendant's apartment in Pardes Hanna. Klaus confirmed that this was a benefit for the defendant and not payment as part of the repayment of a loan. I will mention once again that in the course of the hearing in indictment No. 9, I determined that the accuser was able to prove the existence of a relationship of dependence on Klaus with the defendant and a motivation on Klaus's part to please the defendant so that he 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.
- It should also be noted that already in the course of the hearing in Charge 9, the defendant's claim that he had lent Klaus $5,000 for a trip abroad was rejected, and that he subsequently asked Klaus to repay the debt as part of the renovation he had planned in his house. In other words, the claim of granting the loan and repaying the loan, which is the basis of the defense's arguments regarding the second incident in this indictment (as well as with respect to the third incident) – was already rejected in the course of the hearing in Charge 9.
The argument that Klaus served as the main contractor in the renovation carried out in the defendant's penthouse in Rishon Lezion was also rejected (and it should be added that the defendant did indeed state in his police interrogation that Klaus was not connected to the renovation being carried out in the penthouse (interrogation dated November 1, 2018, P/1B, p. 13)). Hence, the defendant's claim that he sought to attach Yaniv's work in Pardes Hanna to the renovation that was carried out in the penthouse under Klaus as the main contractor should also be rejected.
- To this, it should be added that both Yaniv and Klaus testified that they did not know each other. Yaniv stated this in his statement to the police, which was submitted with consent, while the defense waived its right to try to refute his statements in cross-examination. Klaus was not cross-examined on this matter. It can also be seen that Yaniv was in direct contact with the defendant, which is inconsistent with the claim that Klaus was the main contractor responsible for Yaniv. In view of the above, their words must be accepted and the defendant's claim that neither of them is telling the truth.
- In this state of affairs, the defense's efforts to point to another reason for Klaus to pay for the private work in the defendant's apartment in Pardes Hanna have failed.
- It should also be noted that strangely, the defense referred in its summaries regarding the second incident only to renovation work in the penthouse, and did not mention at all any work carried out in the apartment in Pardes Hanna. According to the table that it attached, a picture emerges according to which the parquets were installed in the penthouse, in contrast to the defendant's version that confirmed that Yaniv performed work of installing parquets in the apartment in Pardes Hanna.
- In view of all of the above, I reject the defense's arguments and determine that the accuser was able to prove what was attributed to the defendant in the second incident.
Third Event