Main Contractor Profit 12% 49, NIS 562.40
The order amount includes VAT 57, 988, 20 NIS
- The defense argued that it was not possible to inflate price quotes (this general argument would be discussed immediately after the hearing of Charge 1).
- With regard to the first three charges, the defense argued that there was no evidence against the defendant and that this was a subjective interpretation that was not sufficient for a criminal conviction. There is no evidence whatsoever, neither direct nor indirect, for the delivery of the gift. It was also argued that Reuven is not a neutral witness, but rather a witness under threats who is in direct conflict with the defendant and has an interest in harming him.
The offenses: taking bribes and theft by a public servant
- The offense of taking bribes is set forth in Section 290 of the Penal Law:
"(a) A public servant who takes a bribe for an action related to his position shall be sentenced to ten years' imprisonment or a fine which is one of the following, whichever is higher:
(1) five times the fine stated in section 61(a)(4), and if the offense was committed by a corporation – ten times the fine stated in section 61(a)(4);
(2) Four times the value of the benefit that he obtained or intended to obtain by the transgression.
(b) In this section, "public servant" – including an employee of a corporation that provides
Service to the public."
Regarding the bribery offense, see Criminal Appeal 8618/19 State of Israel v. Miller (July 12, 2022, paras. 10-12):
"10. ... There are three factual elements of the offense: the recipient of the bribe must be a public servant; the public servant must take a gift that can be treated as a bribe; and the recipient of the gift must be in favor of an action related to the role of the public servant. The third element concerns the requirement that there be a factual causal connection between the bribe and the action of the public servant (see, for example: Criminal Appeal 6916/06 Attias v. State of Israel, para. 8 [published in Nevo] (October 29, 2007) (hereinafter: the Attias case); The Algrissi case, paragraph 7; Criminal Appeal 5046/93 State of Israel v. Hochman, IsrSC 50(1) 2, 9 (1996)). The offense of taking a bribe is therefore not contingent on the outcome, and with regard to its crystallization, it does not raise or lower whether the public servant actually performed any action related to his position (Criminal Appeal 7621/14 Gottesdiener v. State of Israel, paragraph 63 of the judgment of the judge (as he was then called) v. Hendel [published in Nevo] (March 1, 2017); Criminal Appeal 4506/15 Bar v. State of Israel, paragraphs 55, 58 of the judgment on the first charge [published in Nevo] (December 11, 2016) (hereinafter: the Bar case; the Attias case, paragraph 8). As to the mental element of the offense, the public servant must be aware of all the factual elements of the offense, including his awareness that the death was given in order to perform an action related to his position. In other words, the public servant must be aware that the death was given to him as a public servant, and would not have been given to him as a private person, had he not held the same position (Ben Atar case, at p. 710).
- Despite the clarity of the elements of the offense, difficulty has often arisen in proving them. The offenses of governmental corruption – including the offense of bribery – are not committed in the streets of the city, they are committed in the dark and in closed rooms, the circle involved in them is limited and maintains a great deal of compartmentalization, in order to reduce the chances of exposing the criminal plan (the Bar case, paragraph 78 of the judgment of Justice N. Sohlberg on the second charge; the Kellner case, paragraph 4(c) of the judgment of the judge (as he was then called) v. Hendel in the general part of the judgment; Criminal Appeal 4115/08 Gilad v. State of Israel, paragraph 5 of the judgment of Justice Y. Danziger [published in Nevo] (January 24, 2011)). This difficulty in exposing and proving the offense – along with the attempt to eradicate the phenomenon of governmental corruption – led the legislature to determine, inter alia, that in a bribery trial, "the court may convict on the basis of a single testimony, even if it is the testimony of an accomplice" (section 296 ofthe Penal Law; Kellner, paragraph 4(c) of the judgment of the judge (as he was then called) v. Hendel in the general part of the judgment; see also Maor Even-Chen Bribery Offenses 6-7 (2017) (hereinafter: Even-Chen)). This decision of the legislature is one of a series of legislative aspects that reflect a broad approach to attributing criminality to revelations of governmental corruption, and in particular to the offenses of bribery (see, for example, in the Gapso case, paragraph 18; the Atias case, paragraph 7).
- The courts were also required to have difficulty in proving the elements of the offense, a difficulty that stems, as stated, from its commission in private rooms. The difficulty arises mainly with regard to the element of "in favor" and awareness of it. That is, the difficulty in showing that the benefit was given to the public servant in favor of an action related to his position; and that the latter was aware of this circumstance. Naturally, the direct evidence in this context is often found in the exclusive knowledge of the giver of the benefit and of the public servant – and therefore, in the absence of direct evidence, the court is required to draw conclusions in this context from the totality of the circumstances of the case (Criminal Appeal 6258/94 Jacobson v. State of Israel, IsrSC 50(5) 845, 851 (1997)). Accordingly, a double factual presumption was established in case law to prove these foundations, which are learned from life experience, according to which:
"A gift to a public servant by a person with whom he is in official contact is given in favor of an action related to his position. From this also derives a presumption in the fact (which is, of course, contradictory) that the public servant who receives such a gift is aware that the gift is given to him for an action related to his position. This awareness can also be expressed, according to section 20(c)(1) of the Penal Law, even by turning a blind eye on the part of the public servant" (Ben Atar case, at pp. 710-711; it should be noted that as a result of the judgment on that matter, Justice Zamir remained in the minority, but according to his words cited above, the other justices of the panel joined, see ibid., at pp. 713 and 719).