The Defendant's Testimony
Main Investigation (Transcript of January 23, 2023)
- "Fried-Meir" is Klaus's supplier who gives Klaus a 20% discount. Klaus advised the defendant to buy there, choose the goods himself, and accept the discount. The defendant stated: "We ordered goods that were not part of Assi's renovation, so we paid with our own money" (p. 504). Shortly afterwards, the defendant stated that he did not deal with payments to "Fried-Meir", did not receive checks from Klaus and did not receive bribes from him (p. 504). The defendant added: "... He [Klaus] paid the supplier and I paid Assi money for a project he carried out... It appears that there was the balance, but I was arrested at that time and did not pay the debt to Assi" (pp. 504-505).
Cross-examination (transcript of September 19, 2023)
- The defendant confirmed that he had received a 20% discount at Fried-Meir because he had registered the purchase in Klaus' name (p. 540). When it was claimed that according to Maggie's testimony from Fried-Meir's bookkeeping, there were no additional purchases in Klaus's name and no discount in his name, the defendant insisted that he had been told by "Fried-Meir" to register the purchase in the contractor's name and that there was a different price for the contractors (p. 540).
- When the defendant was confronted with the statements of Liat of Fried-Meir, who said that she clearly remembered that a Russian IPS officer named Arkady had brought her Klaus's check, the defendant denied the aforesaid and added that he knew Meir Fried personally and acted only with him. The defendant denied that he was the one who brought Klaus's check to the store (p. 541). When asked who had paid, Klaus replied that Klaus had come to collect the goods chosen by the defendant and to pay.
When the prosecutor made it difficult for him, the defendant replied that Klaus was supposed to pay, but he did not know how Klaus paid, and Klaus did not pay the full amount. A few years later, he called the defendant Meir Fried and told him that there was a debt left (p. 542).
- To the argument that in response to the indictment, he claimed that Klaus's payment to "Fried-Meir" was in the framework of the repayment of Klaus's debt to the defendant, while in his testimony he claimed that the payment was made because Klaus was the main contractor in the renovation of the penthouse, the defendant replied that he chose Klaus to carry out the project in order to get back the money that Klaus owed him (p. 542).
- Conversation No. 5952 of October 9, 2018 - A conversation between the defendant and Klaus, in which the two talk about the choices of ceramics and sanitary ware, the defendant tells Klaus that he writes all the invoices in Klaus's name, and Klaus confirms. The two also talk about Oleg, a friend of the defendant's, doing the work of placing a basin in the shower. The defendant confirmed in his testimony that this conversation was a renovation of his own house, and insisted that Klaus was connected to the project, and that Oleg only installed a basin but did not buy it (p. 543).
Third Incident - The Accuser's Summaries
- The accuser referred to the messages of Maggie and Liat, and to the invoices for purchases of the defendant that were issued in Klaus's name, and to the receipt for a payment of NIS 7,300 through Klaus's check. The accuser also referred to the testimony of Klaus, who confirmed that he had paid for the defendant's personal expenses as a bribe, and denied that he had received a loan from the defendant.
Incident 3 - The Haganah's Summaries
- The defense denied the allegations against the defendant. The defendant contacted Klaus, who is not connected to the IPS, because Klaus had a discount from the supplier of ceramics and sanitary ware. Klaus coordinated the renovation in the defendant's home and received his share. "Fried-Meir" is not connected to the IPS and it is not clear how the incident was incorporated into the indictment.
Third Event - Discussion
- The invoices and receipt of "Fried-Meir" (P/46) show that the defendant's purchases in the sum of NIS 7,300 for the renovation of the penthouse were paid by Klaus. Klaus admitted to the charges against him in this incident, and confirmed that it was an incident of bribery of the defendant. As stated above in the course of the hearing in Charge 9, it was proven in Klaus's case that there was an incentive to bribe the defendant, and the defense's argument that the defendant gave Klaus a loan and that in our case we are dealing with the repayment of the loan, was rejected.
- As for the defendant's version, beyond the contradictions between his statements in the police interrogation and his testimony regarding Klaus's connection to the renovation that was carried out in the penthouse, the defendant also contradicted himself in his testimony in the main interrogation, when he initially stated that the goods discussed in this incident were purchased outside of Klaus's renovation and that he (the defendant) paid with his own money, while later he testified that the goods were purchased for a project that Klaus carried out and that Klaus was the party who paid the supplier. The defendant claimed that this was not a contradiction, but the contradiction was clear on its face. In addition, the defendant's claim that Klaus has a fixed discount at Fried-Meir and that for this reason the purchase was registered in Klaus's name, according to Maggie's testimony from Fried-Meir, Klaus does not have a customer card in the store or a fixed discount. The defendant's claim that he did not transfer Klaus's check to the store was also contradicted by the statements of Liat of Fried-Meir, who testified about an IPS agent of Russian origin who goes by the name Arkadi as the person who brought her the check. It should be noted that Maggie and Liat's statements to the police were submitted with consent, and the defense gave up the opportunity to cross-examine them. The defendant, who claimed that he was only in contact with a certain person in the store, refrained from summoning that person to testify.
- In view of the accuser's solid evidence, the fact that the defense's arguments regarding the granting of a loan and the repayment of a loan had already been rejected, and the defendant's shaky version that was contradicted in the statements of the store employees, I determine that the accuser succeeded in proving what was attributed to the defendant in the framework of the third indictment.
Indictment 12 - Summary
- In view of the aforesaid in relation to each of the three incidents in Charge 12, in all three incidents together the defendant took a bribe of NIS 16,354 for an action related to his position. I therefore convict the defendant of the charges against him in Charge 12.
Indictment 13
- Prior to 2014, Roni Kofi (hereinafter: "Kofi") performed various jobs in the IPS, including in detention facilities in the Central District, which were under the defendant's area of responsibility.
- During that period, for about eight months, the defendant hired Kofi's services for the purpose of performing private work in the penthouse, in another penthouse apartment belonging to the Zeidpods and in a motel. Kofi performed the work together with staff members and for a cumulative sum of approximately NIS 160,000, during which the defendant did not pay Kofi the wages for the private work, despite reminders and requests by Kofi to receive his salary and the salaries of his staff.
- After the completion of the private work, during 2014, at a date that is not known to the accuser, Kofi turned to the defendant and asked him again to pay him his wages. The defendant replied to Kofi that he would offset his personal debt to Kofi by "inflating" the work that Kofi would perform at the IPS.
- Later, at a date not known to the accuser, Kofi met with the defendant in his office at the IPS Commission compound in Ramle, and the defendant wrote down on a piece of paper a payment amount, the exact amount of which is unknown to the accuser (hereinafter: "the amount") for future work in the IPS that Kofi would perform.
- At that time, the defendant recorded an additional sum of about 20% of the sum (hereinafter: "the bribe amount"), the defendant circled the bribe amount and told Kofi that this was the sum that he would have to transfer to the defendant if he accepted his offer. Kofi did not respond to the defendant and due to his refusal to cooperate with the defendant, Kofi's work was interrupted for a long period of time in IPS projects in the Central District.
- In his aforementioned acts, in his act as a public servant, the defendant took a bribe, even though he was not answered, for an action related to his position. The provisions of the law according to which the defendant was charged are taking a bribe (offering a bribe) – an offense under sections 290 and 294(a) of the Penal Law.
The Response to the Indictment 13
- The defendant denied the aforesaid in this charge, according to which he sought to pay the contractor Roni Kofi who carried out renovation work in the apartment and villa belonging to the defendant, by "offset" Kofi's salary by "inflating" work that Kofi would perform in the future at the IPS.
Charge 13 - Evidence