The witness, Mr. Lieber:        That's right.  I said to my lord, I saw Mickey Ganor as an exceptional client, I thought I would do great things with him.  This conduct is truly extraordinary, yes.

350. The defense's attempt to legitimize this unusual conduct by means of the testimony of Aviv Bushinsky and Roni Rimon as "expert witnesses" in the field of strategic consulting should be rejected, since their testimony contributed nothing to understanding the unique circumstances of this case. Even if there is some flexibility in the pricing of fluid projects, the totality of the defendant's conduct indicates extreme unreasonableness that is inconsistent with commercial logic. As the honorable court emphasized before the defendant, this appears to be "ostensibly contracts that the parties exchange among themselves without any real intention that they will be refined in a binding manner." Therefore, this is a fundamentally unfounded claim of service, intended solely to disguise the real transfer of funds.
351. Beyond the defendant's puzzling and illogical conduct, the evidence and the testimony of investigator Uri Kanner indicate that Ganor's character is portrayed as a highly calculated businessman, who is meticulous about every financial expense. In Mr. Kanner's testimony, Ganor was described as "a shrewd businessman, a fox, not a sucker at all, a bit miserly if you can say so" (transcript of January 19, 2023, page 259, line 24). Ganor himself confirmed in his interrogations that he acted consistently to reduce his expenses and that he was rigid in the face of various payment demands.  This calculated and frugal conduct indicates that a person does not usually distribute funds without clear and real consideration, or without a binding contractual engagement.
352. Moreover, Ganor used to run the service providers in front of him with demands for legal opinions and complex contracts before making any payment, as he did, for example, in the case of Maj. (res.) Eliezer Marom.  In the Marom case, Ganor admitted that he had asked for three different opinions, and even confirmed the thesis that he had asked for these opinions "in order to smear him, in order to try to evade payment" (from the transcript of Mr. Ganor's interrogation dated April 4, 2023, starting at page 621, line 29).  This modus operandi, which includes conditioning payments on strict opinions and attempts to evade payment, stands in stark contrast to the ease with which the funds were transferred to the defendant in question, on the basis of a generic draft contract that was never even signed.
353. At the same time, no evidence was found that Ganor contacted him on his own initiative and asked to pay for a service that was not requested, or that did not yield any result. Ganor himself clarified in court his economic logic, according to which a person who promises to arrange a meeting but does not arrange it in the end - "most likely not" will receive payment from him (from the transcript of Ganor's interrogation of March 8, 2023, page 522, line 9). Therefore, the defendant's version that Ganor approached him on his own initiative and transferred tens of thousands of shekels to him without any prior demand and voluntarily, is completely contrary to Ganor' s character, his meticulousness in his expenses and the pattern of his business conduct, as proven in the evidence in the file.
354. Finally, I find it to be determined that the business conduct of the defendant, Mr. Lieber, and his explanations regarding the manner in which he received the payments from Miki Ganor, are devoid of any reasonable commercial logic and clearly strengthen his version of the original confession in the interrogation over his later versions in court.

Analysis of the weight of Ganor's statements and testimony

355. The significance of section 296 of the Penal Law is that in bribery offenses (including the offense of bribery), the court may convict a defendant on the basis of a single testimony, even if it is the testimony of an accomplice. From an evidentiary standpoint, this section creates a significant leniency in the general laws of evidence, since it allows, in principle, to rely on the versions of Ganor (as a bribe) or Lieber (as a mediator) for the purpose of conviction, without the statutory obligation to present an evidentiary addition of the type of "reinforcement" that is generally required for the testimony of an accomplice.
356. However, despite the evidentiary leniency in section 296, in practice, a significant evidentiary addition is required in this case due to the circumstances of the giving of the testimonies and the special status of the witnesses. Since Ganor's incriminating version was given while he was in the status of a "state witness" - a status that he later retracted - according to the provisions of section 54a(a) of the Evidence Ordinance, his testimony still requires additional evidentiary of the type of "assistance".  In addition, the state's desire to submit Ganor's foreign statements and to give preference to his later testimony in court under section 10A of the Evidence Ordinance requires by law an additional evidentiary addition of the type of "reinforcement".
357. Ganor's testimony at the stage when he was a state witness, combined with the many external evidences, serves as a solid evidentiary basis that integrates with and strengthens the defendant's confession. As I stated in the chapter discussing Ganor's testimony, Ganor's version to the police as a state witness is of decisive evidentiary value, revealing the mechanism by which Lieber served as a conduit for the transfer of bribe money from Ganor to David Sharan.
358. The external evidentiary corroboration supporting Ganor's testimony includes many objective materials that were seized, including the "table of advisors, " from Ronen Shemer's notebooks and from secretary Josie Singer's notebooks. In addition, e-mail correspondence, computer and cellular outputs, media studies were found, as well as Ganor's diaries and reports to the shipyard, to which Ganor himself referred the investigators.
359. This objective evidence corresponds with the stages of the transfer of the funds and establishes the thesis that the payments to Lieber were not made for real services but rather as a cover for the bribery conspiracy, since in practice "Lieber did not provide him with any service of any kind." This corroboration directly supports the core of Lieber's confession to the police, in which he confirmed that he served as a transit station and transferred the money he received from Ganor's companies to David Sharan.
360. I am of the opinion that the totality of this evidence far exceeds the requirement of "matter for strengthening" or "assistance" required under the Evidence Ordinance for the purpose of conviction on the basis of the external statement of a state witness. Cross-checking the financial data, the media studies, and the payment tables with Lieber's confession creates a tight factual framework that verifies the commission of the offense of bribery.
361. I find it to be determined that the accuser met the evidentiary standard required for the defendant's conviction, thanks to two main evidentiary pillars: the defendant's full confession to the police, and Miki Ganor's version as a state witness. The defendant's confession to the police of September 5, 2017 (P/5A) establishes a solid foundation, in which he fully admitted that he served as a "kind of money pipe" for the transfer of bribe money from Ganor to Sharan.
362. The defendant confirmed that he already knew from his first meeting that this was his job, and that he transferred "the full money" to Sharan in cash, in several installments, after redeeming it through the companies "N.C.T. Communications" and "Ness Mor".  I found that this confession was authentic, was given freely and voluntarily after consulting with his lawyer, and was even accompanied by a selective distinction in which the defendant refrained from incriminating other people.
363. The second pillar is Ganor's testimony as a state witness to the police, which I determined has "maximum weight" as corroborating evidence for the defendant's confession. Ganor's version is supported by many external, objective and rigid evidentiary corroborations, such as the "Table of Advisors", from Ronen Shemer's notebooks, from Josie Singer's notebooks, email correspondence, computer and cellular outputs, and communication studies.  This evidence proves that in practice "Lieber did not provide him with any service of any kind", and confirms that the payments were used only as a cover for the transfer of the bribe.
364. The cross-referencing of these data far exceeds the legal requirements for additional evidentiary of the type of "assistance" or "reinforcement, " which are required for external statements of a state witness. Cross-checking the financial data, media studies, and payment tables with Lieber's confession creates a tight and verified factual framework.  Therefore, the full combination of the defendant's authentic confessions and Ganor's statement and the objective evidence proves his guilt in the totality of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offense of bribery brokerage

365. The offense of brokering bribes, according to section 295(a) of the Penal Law, requires proof of a factual basis that includes receipt of money, money equivalents, or a benefit "in order to give a bribe", as well as a mental element of awareness of the purpose of the gift as a bribe. According to the court's ruling, the offense is perfected upon the completion of the action between the bribe giver and the intermediary, based on an agreement on the final purpose of the bribe.  It does not matter whether the bribe ultimately reached its destination, or whether the recipient of the bribe was actually aware of it (Criminal Appeal 8618/19 State of Israel v.  Sharon Miller (Nevo, July 12, 2022); see also, for example, Criminal Appeal 5083/08 Nizri v.  State of Israel, para.  58 [published in Nevo] (June 24, 2009)).
366. The factual component of the receipt of the funds is proven by bank evidence and accounting documents agreed upon by the parties. According to the facts of the indictment, on November 12, 2014, a payment in the amount of ILS 35, 400 was transferred from the account of Mickey Ganor's T.G.  company to the account of the N.C.T.  company owned by the defendant (hereinafter: the "First Gift Payment").  On August 11, 2016, a second payment in the amount of ILS 58, 500 was transferred from T.G.'s account to the account of Ness Mor, which is owned by Lieber's partner (hereinafter: the "Second Gift Payment").
367. The proof that the money was given "in order to give a bribe" and not in the framework of a legitimate transaction is based on the statements of the state's witness, Miki Ganor, to the police. Ganor explicitly and categorically stated that the payments to Lieber were made only for "media consulting", but in practice Lieber and his companies did not provide him with any service of any kind, and the payments were all intended to be transferred to David Sharan (Ganor's statements, P/68, at paras.  351-363; P/75, at paras.  58-69; P/71, at paras.  307-310).
368. The main evidentiary evidence to prove the defendant's consent and awareness of the purpose of the funds is his version confessed to the police, which was given after his meeting and consultation with Attorney Yair Regev. The defendant admitted that Ganor began to talk to him about the vessels' transactions, and that he acted as a "conduit" for transferring money to Sharan, as reflected in his interrogation of 05 September 2017 (P/5A).
369. In the course of his interrogation of September 5, 2017 (P/5), the defendant gave his confession to the facts of the indictment and accepted responsibility for them. The defendant described his role in the relationship between him and Ganor and Sharan: "David Sharan approached me, I think once or twice, and told me that he wanted me to meet a very interesting businessman with whom he had very good relations.  At a certain point, he told me that the businessman owed him money for an activity that David had carried out for him.  David was in fact asking me to receive the money for him from Mickey Ganor.  I am transferring the money from Ganor to David Sharan" (P/5, at p.  2, paras.  30-32).
370. The defendant was asked about his initial version, which he gave on the night of his arrest (in the interrogation of September 2, 2017), according to which the money was transferred to Sharan as a token of gratitude for having connected him with Ganor: "Q. So the matter of gratitude, meaning that you transfer money to David Sharan as a sign of your gratitude to him for arranging for you as a customer of Mickey Ganor, isn't that true? A.  David asked me to receive the money from Mickey Ganor for him.  Q.  Did you receive money from Mickey Ganor for you? For you? A.  No. ...  Q.  When you come to a meeting with Mickey, do you know that your job is to transfer money from Mickey to David? A.  Yes" (P/5, at pp.  6-7, paras.  196-204).
371. The defendant recounted the first meeting he had with Ganor in the presence of Sharan, in which Ganor told the defendant that he had heard about him and would be happy to use his services. The defendant stated that he did not remember that any sums were discussed during the meeting, but he remembered asking Ganor what exactly he should write in the agreement that would be signed between them; Ganor asked him to send him a draft agreement, and the defendant did so.  After the defendant sent the draft, he received a phone call from Ganor, who informed him that the agreement was not good and forwarded a different version to him through Ronen Shemer, Ganor's personal assistant (P/5, at p.  2).
372. The defendant admitted that throughout the period between the first payment in 2014 and the second payment in 2016, he made sure to redeem the money after receiving it from Ganor and transfer it to Sharan (P/5, at p. 4, paras.  104-110).  With regard to the first payment, the defendant described the sequence of events in the following terms:

"As far as I can remember, Mickey dragged his feet on the issue of the first payment.  I think David also asked me what was going on with the payment, whether Mickey paid me or not, I told my uncle that Mickey didn't pay me.  I remember there was a time when I asked Mickey, 'Tell me, Mickey, what's going on with the money?' At some point, either Josie (Ganor's secretary - B.S.) or Ronen Shemer called me and asked me to send an invoice.  I remember asking them who to issue the invoice to, what the name of the company was, Ronen got back to me with the name Marine Consulting.

1. Where did the amount in the invoice come from?
2. It came on behalf of Mickey, I don't remember who exactly, whether from Mickey himself or someone else from his office.
3. What happens after the money is transferred to you from Mickey Ganor?
4. I don't remember exactly, but I can say that most of the money I transferred to Uncle Sharan was usually tied to David's trips abroad, and then David would say to me, "Listen, I need 10, 000, I need 5, 000. I remember one time when he flew to New York and told me that he preferred the sum in dollars." (P/5, at pp.  2-3, paras.  53-64).

In the same matter, the defendant described the transfer of the funds in relation to the second payment: "The money is transferred to David Sharan by the same method, I ask Nati Mor to redeem the money after the money is received in the company's account, by tax clearance (the mistake in the original - B.S.) and the money is transferred to David Sharan by the same method, each time according to David Eli's demand" (P/5, at p.  3, paras.  79-80).  When the defendant was asked why no payment was made in 2015, he replied that all the payments were at Ganor's sole discretion, and that he himself was not a party to the determination of the demand.  According to him: "If I contact Mickey regarding the payment, it is after David contacted me regarding the payment" (P/5, p.  4, para.  115).

373. The defendant stated that in cases where Sharan stated that he needed the money, the transfers to him were made in two ways: in cash, or by means of money that the defendant asked his partner, Natan Mor, to withdraw for him (P/5, at p. 3, paras.  65-68).  The defendant did not remember exactly the sums he transferred to Sharan each time (P/5, at p.  3, paras.  71-72).  When the defendant was asked whether all the money he received from Ganor was indeed transferred to Sharan or whether he had left part of it in his possession, he replied that he did not remember whether the money was transferred "exactly for the shekel", but the guiding idea was that the money was transferred in full from Gonor to Sharan, without the defendant charging any commission (P/5, p.  4, paras.  121-124).
374. The confessions of Ganor and Lieber are supported by many external evidence seized in Ganor's offices and documents, which serve as assistance and as evidence support for their weight. This evidence includes, inter alia, Ganor's "table of advisors", excerpts from Ronen Shemer's notebooks (P/47, P/48), the notebooks of Secretary Josie Singer, e-mails, communication studies, and cellular locations.
375. David Sharan's status as a public servant, or as a candidate who was a candidate to serve in public office at the time of the commission of the offenses, is proven by the testimony of Adv. Shlomit Barnea-Farago (P/100 to P/103) and from other documents documenting this proceeding (P/38 to P/43). On the date of the first bestowal payment (November 12, 2014), Sharan was a candidate to serve as Director of the Prime Minister's Office, and on the date of the payment of the second gift (August 11, 2016), he was actually serving as a public servant.  These data substantiate the connection of the payments to his public position.
376. Lieber's awareness and motives are also proven by his own testimony about his relations with Sharan, who held a high-ranking position and was accessible to him, with the aim of promoting the interests of his clients in return. In his interrogation, Lieber admitted to the existence of a "give and take" relationship, and even detailed a case in which Sharan helped him promote a formal matter related to Bazan's control permit for his friend Adi Federman (P/5, paras.  147-148).

The defendant was asked about his understanding of his role in the relationship between Sharan and Ganor:

1. What do you understand about your role with David Sharan? What did you agree with Sharan?
2. I'll say, this whole story started with the fact that Mickey owes Uncle Sharan money and David asks the money to go through me.
3. Why does Uncle Sharan need you?
4. At that time David was working at EAPC, I think that it was simply that Mickey, in his great miserliness, did not want to pay David in cash because Mickey wanted there to be a recognized expense of the funds." (P/5, at p. 4, paras.  95-99).
5. The defendant was asked why he agreed to transfer money for David Sharan, and this is his answer: "I agree to it, and you will write for the record because in all my stupidity, in the sense of the moment, I wanted to help a good friend who asked for a request. I didn't see things that way, I wanted to help.  I also have to say that the matter was built by Mickey in a certain way that at first I really understood that I was supposed to be a kind of money pipe, and little by little Mickey began to come up with these and other questions." (P/5 at p.  4, paras.  101-103).
6. The defendant said that the spirit of the matter was very discreet, and there was no need to talk about the matter itself - "I understood the matter and understood that he had dropped it in the room. In response to your question, I gave the money to David in cash, always in cash, always directly to David.  The reason for using cash was that we wanted the transfer to be discreet, with all that this implies" (P/5, at pp.  126-128).  When the defendant was asked whether it would be correct to say that the invoices were taken out of the defendant's company for the purpose of blurring the path of the money, he replied that only in this way could he have received the money, and added, "Otherwise they would not have needed me, they could have gotten along among themselves" (P/5, at pp.  129-130).
7. When asked why he coordinated the meeting with Ganor in Herzliya, the defendant replied: "I coordinate the meeting with Mickey because I was nervous when the affair exploded... And I knew that I had received money from Mickey and transferred it to David and all the interaction between me from Mickey to David.  Obviously, there was a feeling of pressure in this matter.  The second part of the matter, I really thought that I could take control of this matter from a media perspective and I thought I could help and deal with this matter" (P/5, at pp.  5, paras.  131-135).
8. The defendant stated that Sharan told him that if he was called for interrogation, he should remember that no one knew about the transfer of funds between them, and that if the situation remained that way, everything would be fine (P/5, at p. 5, paras.  142-143).    The defendant described that the beginning of his work with Ganor was amorphous and without structured order, and that it was conducted mainly in accordance with Ganor's desire to contact him.  According to him, later meetings were held between them on various issues, such as the issue of ammonia and reciprocal procurement, and only at a later stage did they focus mainly on the subject of submarines (P/5, at p.  2, paras.  49-51).

During his interrogation, the defendant was asked about the work he actually performed for Ganor: