Amos Gorodish's threats to expose Biton's payments to the defendant, which pressured the defendant, and Biton's statement to the defendant following the threats: "What is between you and me is to bury" are also reinforcements.
- In the course of hearing the testimonies (Morris's testimony and the defendant's testimony) it became clear that the defendant also asked the main contractor in the project to increase the project's budget (the defendant did not dispute this). This is not included in the facts of the indictment, and it does not contradict the facts of the indictment. I will note that Morris reinforced Biton's statement that the defendant was the one who arranged the work for Biton as a subcontractor of M. Michaeli.
- The evidence shows that the defendant did indeed have a direct relationship with the subcontractor, Biton. In addition, it appears from the defendant's words to Biton ("If I don't trust you, you won't work") and even from the defendant's version that he could have recommended a contractor or asked to disqualify him, that the defendant had influence on the question of whether Biton would work for the IPS or not. This is in contrast to the defendant's basic claim, throughout the relevant charges, that he had no influence on the selection of subcontractors in the IPS. The defendant's influence in Biton's case turned out to be very significant: he introduced him to main contractors, made it clear to him that if he did not trust him, he would no longer work for the IPS, chose him as a subcontractor in the project that is subject to indictment 13, and had direct contact with him, including in the transfer of invoices and checks. This effect clearly indicates a relationship of dependence and control between the two.
- The defendant claimed in his testimony that the reason he asked Biton if he was carrying invoices and his check with him in preparation for the meeting with him on March 7, 2018, and that the reason for the meeting between the two on June 13, 2018 in the evening, was Biton's request to assist the defendant in the TAMA 38 project that Biton approached without any connection to the IPS. However, the matter was not mentioned at all in Biton's testimony, neither by Biton nor by the defendant's defense attorney, who refrained from questioning Biton on the matter, and Biton even explicitly stated that he had given the defendant the invoice P/35 on March 7, 2018 and asked him to transfer it to M. Michaeli. In addition, it should be noted that the issue of assistance in the TAMA 38 project did not even come up in the defense's summaries. All of this shows that the claim of assistance in a TAMA 38 project should not be trusted.
- To very central questions that arose in the framework of the indictment, the defendant had no substantive answer beyond the fact that he did not remember or did not know. Thus, the defendant testified that he did not remember whether Biton brought him the tax invoice after he finished the work, and did not know whether it was an invoice in the envelope that Biton asked him to send to the main contractor. In addition, the defendant claimed that he did not remember what Biton meant when he told the defendant, in the context of the expectation of receiving the check from the main contractor, and when the defendant was in Eilat: "No matter where you are in Eilat, I will arrange it for you..." In addition, the defendant did not offer any explanation for the fact that a subcontractor in the IPS wanted to come to Eilat while he was there on vacation. The defense summaries also did not find any explanation for this.
- The defendant explained the very direct communication with Biton in his cross-examination by saying that Morris was abroad and did not answer the phone. However, this explanation contradicts his statements in his main interrogation, in which he stated that he had spoken with Morris, who referred him to Biton ("He [Morris] said I had no idea I had a subcontractor there he was doing the work, I asked who the subcontractor was... He gave me a phone..." - p. 514 of the transcript of January 23, 2023). In his cross-examination, when the defendant was confronted with this contradiction, he replied that he was not sure that Morris was indeed abroad, and that Morris did not answer the phone (which once again contradicts his statements in the main interrogation). The aforementioned contradictions indicate the weakness of the defendant's version.
- The statement that in the telephone conversation of May 16, 2018, Biton shared with the defendant about receiving the check and with the intention of trying to break the check the next day, " like a social worker" and not in a manner related to the defendant, is clearly innocent, certainly when the two spoke on the phone three times regarding the said check, and when in a previous conversation on May 3, 2018, Biton told the defendant in connection with the check shredding that "no matter where you are in Eilat, I will arrange it for you..."
- I will add that the defendant's version that the check was needed by Biton in order to purchase materials and pay the workers for the purpose of continuing work on the Abu Kabir project has no expression in his conversations with Biton, which were submitted as exhibits. In addition, the fact that the check itself was given to Biton on May 15, 2018 (according to Biton's words in his conversation with the defendant of May 16, 2018), together with Morris' statement that he estimated that work on the project was completed by Passover 2018 (things that were not cross-examined), raise a clear difficulty regarding the claim that the check was necessary for the purpose of continuing work on the project.
- As for Amos Gorodish's threats that he would reveal that Biton was paying the defendant a bribe in order to get jobs in the IPS – threats about which the defendant did not file any complaint, the defendant did not offer any satisfactory explanation for his words to Biton following Amos' threats: "You are my son... Either keep your mouth shut, or be healthy, brother"; "If I don't trust you, you won't work." In addition, the defendant's version was that Amos threatened him because he thought that the defendant did not pay Biton (and therefore Biton did not pay Amos), but the defendant did not clarify what exactly Amos' threat was according to this version, and later changed his mind and claimed that Amos did not threaten him at all. The combination of all that has been said on this subject (what the defendant said to Biton, the existence of an unclear version and its contradiction later on, and the failure to file a complaint with the police regarding the threats) strengthens the accuser's claim regarding the receipt of bribes by the defendant.
- As for the defense's arguments regarding the manner in which orders are opened at the IPS, the lack of a relationship of dependence and control between a construction officer and a subcontractor, etc., these are general arguments that describe the proper manner in which things are supposed to be conducted in the IPS (arguments already discussed above). This is while in our case there is specific evidence, as detailed above, that teaches otherwise.
I will note that in the circumstances of the case, including what was stated in Morris's testimony, I see no need to relate to the defense's argument regarding the connection between M. Michaeli and Bitolit.
- In view of all of the above, I determine that the accuser met the burden of proving what is stated in Charge 14, and I convict the defendant of the charges against him on this charge.
Charge 15