Criminal Case (Center) 6040-07-20 State of Israel v. Arkadi Shkovitzky - part 87

The Defendant's Testimony

Main Investigation (Transcript of January 23, 2023)

709. Kofi is a worker, and he is not a subcontractor or a main contractor – he has no business (p. 506). Kofi worked together with a team of three Russian-speaking workers, working in the amount of NIS 10,000. The defendant paid Kofi for the work and also paid each worker separately (p. 507). The work included ten metal beams in the penthouse, in preparation for the roof (p. 509).
710. The defendant was asked about the contradiction in the indictment: according to the indictment, he owed Kofi NIS 160,000, but in his proposal to inflate Kofi's account to the IPS, he asked Kofi to transfer additional money to him (the defendant). The defendant's answer was that what was stated in the indictment was illogical (p. 508).
711. Kofi cannot come to the defendant's office (p. 508). Kofi did not come to his office, except for one occasion in 2015, when he received permission to do so, and when he arrived, nothing of what is described in the indictment happened (pp. 509-510). Kofi is a criminal who served a prison sentence for forging documents and invoices (p. 510).
712. In 2015, the defendant learned that Kofi had said that he was "asking for dividends." The defendant summoned Kofi and in the presence of his commander Alfasi asked Kofi about this statement. Kofi explained that he had not been properly understood, and that he meant that maintenance personnel were asking him to give them paint and cement. Under these circumstances, the defendant decided that he did not want Kofi to continue working for the IPS (pp. 510-511).

Cross-examination (transcript of September 19, 2023)

713. The defendant reiterated that Kofi was not a subcontractor in the IPS. Kofi was never a contractor or self-employed, but rather an employee (p. 544). Kofi performed private work in the motel and in the penthouse, as one of the workers, and he is not aware of any work Kofi did in his son's apartment (pp. 544-545).
714. The defendant denied the claim that he had told Kofi to inflate bids for the purpose of repaying the defendant's private debt. The defendant noted that Kofi, as a laborer, could not give price quotes, and that even the IPS operates according to tenders and procedures and not according to price quotes (p. 545).
715. To the fact that Kofi provided details in real time about the "inflating method" described by other contractors who testified in court and to the police, Kofi replied that he was only a worker (p. 546).
716. As to Kofi's statement that the defendant stopped him and sabotaged his ability to work in the Central District of the IPS, the defendant stated that he receives a list of workers from a contractor, he does not check who they are, and passes the list to field security, who approves or refuses. The defendant has no discretion in the matter (p. 547). The defendant cannot say that he is not satisfied with a particular contractor or worker and that he does not want him to work for the IPS. However, he went on to say that he could approve or not approve a subcontractor, when according to him it was only a recommendation (p. 547).

Charge 13 - The accuser's summaries

717. According to the accuser, the evidentiary basis is based on Kofi's testimony, in which there were identical details in the description of the "inflating mechanism" described by other witnesses who did not know Kofi (such as Reuven and Arik). The fact that Kofi did not know the other contractors, as well as the fact that he described the defendant's offer and the demand for bribes about a year before embarking on an open investigation, strengthen his credibility.
718. In his testimony, Kofi explained how he worked for the defendant in private work and at the same time also worked as a subcontractor in the IPS. It was also claimed that Kofi elaborated and explained that he in fact managed the business of his partner, on whom the business was registered, and that Kofi did not hide his past from the court. It was claimed that Kofi elaborated on the defendant's offer, regarding an increase in the price quotes for work performed by Kofi in the IPS, in such a way that the surplus money would cover the defendant's private debt to Kofi, and in this way the defendant would offset his debt to Kofi.
719. The accuser referred to the testimony of Yossi, who denied the defendant's claim that he paid Kofi's employees directly. Yossi also confirmed that the defendant had stopped Kofi's work at the IPS – something that also arises from the testimony of Morris Michaeli, who wanted to use Kofi's services, but was explicitly told that he was not allowed to work with Kofi, due to the defendant's objections.
720. The defendant confirmed that Kofi had performed private work for him. He relied on the claim that Kofi was "only" a worker and not the business owner, and therefore he could not give price quotes. The defendant first confirmed, as part of his cross-examination, that he had the ability and authority to deny an employee entry to IPS compounds so that he would not work, and then retracted his statement immediately afterwards.
721. The defendant's line of defense, according to which he paid Kofi's employees independently, did not succeed. It was argued that the defendant did not pay Kofi, did not bring evidence that he paid, and his version that he paid the workers directly was contradicted in the testimonies. The lack of findings for payment for Kofi's private work strengthens Kofi's version and credibility that the defendant indeed offered to pay his private debt by means of the inflating method.

Charge 13 - Defense Summaries

722. The defense denied everything attributed to the defendant. It was argued that Kofi is a salaried worker and is not a main contractor or a subcontractor. The defendant, as a construction officer, has no direct connection with the workers. The defendant does not meet with various workers in his office or elsewhere, and does not talk to them about future jobs. As a salaried worker, Kofi cannot be connected to IPS bids. In addition, the defendant cannot revoke a permit to enter the prison.
723. In 2013, the defendant met two Russian-speaking workers. The defendant offered them to install ten tension beams on his balcony. The workers agreed and asked to add Kofi to them. The defendant contacted Kofi, who took measurements and gave the defendant an offer of NIS 18,000 (including the materials). The defendant gave Kofi the work. The three workers finished the work within four days. In order to prevent misunderstandings, the defendant paid Kofi NIS 10,000 in cash.
724. It was claimed that Kofi gave different versions regarding the cost of the private work he performed for the defendant. In his testimony in court, he mentioned work that cost NIS 120,000, while in his interrogation on December 5, 2017, he spoke of a cost of NIS 60,000. This indicates that Kofi's testimony is not reliable.
725. The pergola in the adjacent apartment, which was carried out by Kofi and the other workers, is not connected to the defendant. Kofi and the workers carried out the work through another contractor.

Charge 13 - Hearing

726. Having examined the evidence in this charge, I am of the opinion that the accuser did not meet the burden imposed on her to prove what is attributed to the defendant, and therefore the defendant should be acquitted of this charge. All as will be detailed below.
727. First of all, I will note that the defendant was charged with the offense of taking a bribe (offering a bribe), an offense under sections 290 and 294(a) of the Penal Law. Section 294(a) states that a person who asks for or offers a bribe, even though he is not answered, is the same as taking a bribe. In other words, for the purpose of a conviction of an offense, it is sufficient that the defendant asked to receive a bribe, even if his request was not granted.
728. I will clarify that the accuser claimed that the defendant asked Kofi to inflate accounts with the IPS for two purposes. The first was to repay the defendant's debt to Kofi (section 3 of indictment 13), and the second, to transfer additional funds to the defendant (sections 4-5 of indictment 13). According to the indictment, Kofi did not agree to cooperate with the defendant and therefore his work was interrupted for a long period of time in IPS projects in the Central District.
729. The accuser is based on Kofi's testimony. In this case, the picture is somewhat complicated. On the one hand, I got the impression that Kofi is well acquainted with the inflating mechanism. It is also important that he gave details about a year before the open interrogation, when it comes to details similar to those given by other contractors who testified, without any connection between him and the other contractors. I was impressed by the credibility of his words in this regard. I will also briefly note that I prefer Kofi's words and Yosefian's testimony according to which the defendant was not paid for the private work on the defendant's property, over the defendant's version that he paid for the execution of these works.
730. On the other hand, there is a difficulty in Kofi's testimony, which took a surprising turn in his cross-examination. In his main interrogation, Kofi presented himself as an independent subcontractor, who carried out work for the IPS for a long period of time, until he performed work for the defendant in his home and the defendant wanted to pay him by means of the inflating method. Kofi even noted that he could have sued the defendant for the private debt. However, in his cross-examination, it suddenly became clear that Kofi was an employee who worked for Alumtris, and that this company was the subcontractor vis-à-vis the IPS. Contrary to what is described in the accuser's summaries, Kofi did not testify that he manages his partner's business  , but rather that he is an employee manager of the company. During the period when he performed the private work at the motel (work that according to the indictment was completed during 2014), Kofi worked as an employee of Alumtris. Kofi confirmed in his testimony that the debt for these works was in fact a debt to Alumtris.
731. It also became clear at the beginning of the cross-examination that Kofi had served a prison sentence in the past, and after his release from prison in 2013, he did not return to work in IPS facilities and did not try to ask for the approval of the security officer for this purpose. Later in the cross-examination, it emerged that Kofi had worked in parallel with his work on the defendant's properties in other IPS bodies (Binui and Employment, "maybe not for Arkady, but... in another body"), but when Kofi was asked explicitly if he worked in the facilities for which the defendant was responsible, his answer was not unequivocal ("It may be so, but yes, not that he is responsible for them in terms of supervision. No... we would work in a parallel body, which is construction, which would have done much larger projects"). In other words, there is a significant doubt as to whether during the period of time relevant to the indictment, Kofi worked in the facilities for which the defendant is responsible.
732. In view of the difficulties and doubts that arose, as described above, I order that the defendant be acquitted of the charges against him in Charge 13.

Charge 14