The Defendant's Testimony
Main Investigation (Transcript of January 23, 2023)
- The defendant claimed that Biton was not a subcontractor (p. 511). As for the project in Abu Kabir, the defendant prepared an estimate for the project, and after receiving approval for the estimate, he prepared a bill of quantities for the project and forwarded it to the construction department for inspection (p. 512). The defendant denied the claim that he had instructed Biton to inflate the pricing in the project (p. 512).
- On May 4, 2018, he received a phone call from Abu Kabir, stating that the workers had not been working for a week. The defendant arrived at the site, saw that the project was not being carried out, and called the main contractor (Morris), who referred him to Biton. Biton told him that he had agreed with the main contractor that he would pay him an advance for the purchase of materials and payment to the workers. The defendant stated that this was none of his business, and called the main contractor to explain to him this and to emphasize that the project had to be completed according to the schedule. The main contractor said that he would take care of the matter. The defendant went on vacation in Eilat with his wife, and on his way there, Biton called him and thanked him for the contractor promising to pay him. In the words of the defendant: "After a day, maybe he said, 'Arkadi, I got everything, you have nothing to worry about, the project will be done on time properly, I said, listen, I'm on vacation, I don't want to talk, I want to rest, where are you in Eilat, maybe I'll come, so I hung up the phone anymore, I didn't answer him" (p. 514).
- There is no mention in the investigation material that Biton gave him money (p. 515). Section 5 of the indictment (the section that relates to the fact that Biton informed the defendant that he had received a check from the main contractor and that he would make sure to break the check and transfer his share of it to the defendant in cash) does not relate to him. Biton shared it with him "like a social worker" and nothing more than that (p. 515). With regard to section 6 of the indictment (shredding the check at a change and a meeting with the defendant during which Biton gave the defendant payment) – the defendant denied the claim that Biton came to give him money and added that Biton never gave him money (p. 516). The defendant explained that Biton's visit to his apartment was against the background of Biton's request to help the defendant in preparing a bill of quantities for a TAMA 38 project: "... He calls one day, apparently on this date, Arkadi, what about the bill of quantities, maybe you prepared it, maybe I didn't tell him, I'm on vacation, I'm busy renovating the kitchen, he says, Arkady, give me an address, I'm coming, I'll help you tidy, he's arriving, he's arriving... A protruding cut, we put a protrusion, and that's it... He didn't want to give me money..." (p. 516).
Cross-examination (transcript of September 19, 2023)
- The defendant was presented with exhibit P/35 - the tax invoice dated March 7, 2018 issued by Biton to M. Michaeli, and accused the defendant that Biton testified that the defendant arranged this work for him. The defendant denied the aforesaid and added that he does not arrange work. He does not remember whether Biton brought him the tax invoice after he finished the work (p. 549). The main contractor had to come to him at the office and Biton asked him to hand over an envelope to the contractor. He does not know if there was an invoice in the envelope (p. 549). The defendant reiterated that Biton's statement that he transferred NIS 7,000 to the defendant in cash was a lie (p. 549).
- As for the conversation No. 2134 of March 7, 2018 between the defendant and Biton, in which the defendant asked Biton whether he had brought invoices and checks with him, and in response to the claim that he had previously testified that he was not in contact with subcontractors, the defendant replied that the matter had nothing to do with the IPS at all (p. 549). According to him, Biton participated in a TAMA 38 tender but due to a lack of familiarity with the subject, he asked for the defendant's help. The defendant explained to Biton that first, in order to participate, a certain status must be shown, and therefore he asked Biton to bring the references that indicate his work as a contractor and his abilities (pp. 549-550). When asked why Biton did not say this during his testimony in court (in which this conversation was played), he replied that he did not know if Biton was asked about the matter in his testimony, but that he had seen it in the interrogations (p. 550).
- In the case of Amos Gridish, who threatened Biton that he would reveal that Biton was paying the defendant a bribe in order to get jobs in the IPS, the defendant stated that he intended to go to the police to file a complaint on the matter (p. 550). In conversation No. 2547 of March 14, 2018 (evening), the defendant told Biton that Amos had called him and complained that Biton had not paid him for his work, and instructed Biton to transfer the payment to Amos.
To the question of how a conversation about the subcontractor's financial affairs is consistent with the defendant's claim that he has no contact with the subcontractors, the defendant explained that the background to the matter was Amos's threats against him (p. 551). Later in the conversation, the sentence was stated: "My son, you are... either keep your mouth shut, or be healthy, brother" – the defendant denied the claim that he had asked Biton to stop "chatting" about the positive attitude he received from the defendant as a result of the bribe, and the denial of accepting bribes (p. 552). Later in the conversation, the defendant said: "If I don't trust you, you won't work." To the argument that it appears from what the defendant as a construction officer had the ability to decide who worked as a subcontractor and who did not, contrary to what he said in his testimony, the defendant replied in the negative, explaining that he could have approached a more senior entity in the field and recommended a contractor or asked to disqualify him (p. 552).