Bat Chen Cohen (Investigator 2): You see, things are starting to appear.

Yitzhak Lieber (interrogee): No, no, it's okay, it's...

Bat Chen Cohen (Investigator 2): You see.

Yitzhak Lieber (interrogee): [01:53:36.124] It was...  It's a little emotional...

Bat Chen Cohen (Investigator 2): I'm not talking about the girl now, I'm talking to you about reality.

Yitzhak Lieber (interrogee): The reality itself was a bit ...

Bat Chen Cohen (Investigator 2): You don't have explanations but, [01:53:48.529] you don't have answers.

Shlomi Farjun (Investigator 1): You're not dealing with them...

Bat Chen Cohen (Investigator 2): You don't have answers, you don't.

Shlomi Farjun (Researcher 1): [01:53:50.071] It's that you're running (unclear word).

Bat Chen Cohen (Investigator 2): [01:53:52.034] (unclear words, talking together) Mickey tells you how much to pay?

189. It can be seen from the course of the investigation that the incident did indeed affect the defendant emotionally. With regard to his verbal explanations in his testimony in court, the defendant explained that the decision to confess on 05 September 2017 stemmed from his strong desire to be released from detention, to return home and to end the difficult incident in which he was subjected.  He testified that following the dramatic interrogation on 04 September 2017, he made a decision at night in the detention cell to give his interrogators the version they wanted to hear, even though it was not true.  The defendant explained this by saying that he was no longer able to cope with the complex situation and did not know what would happen to his family.  The defendant described his decision-making process at the time as "hysterical" and "disgraceful, " saying that he acted without any anchor and that he "simply jumped off the balcony" in order to flee the scene.  He detailed that he was under heavy pressure due to the aggravation of the suspicions against him, the search conducted on his mobile phone, and the fear of proceedings that would affect his wife and accomplice.  According to him, his entire confession was given solely to serve his desire to bring about his release, in the belief that cooperation would lead to a speedy end to the detention.
190. In addition, the defendant explained in the witness stand that he would have preferred to be beaten in the face rather than deal with the difficult situation in which his young daughter calls him during the interrogation. In his testimony, he clarified that he understood very well that he had not been given any official promise of release, but that he had hoped and developed a wishful thinking that cooperation would lead to this.  Finally, he confirmed in court that he had made up his mind to confess and lie despite the fact that his defense attorney "did not go along with him" about this move, out of deep despair and a desire to bring about an end to his detention.
191. Contrary to what he said in court, in his interrogations with the police on September 5, 2017, the defendant explained to his interrogators that he had decided to give his confessional version after he realized that he had served as "a kind of pawn in the game" and that he had been "worked on." He noted that throughout the interrogation he had oscillated between the desire to protect his friend and the desire to tell the truth as it was known to him. That morning, the defendant shared with the interrogators his feeling that "things were going on above him, " without him being a part of them, and that they were the ones that led to the suspicions against him being raised.  The defendant explained to his interrogators that it was the friend who introduced him to Mickey Ganor, assured him that he could be trusted 100 percent, and asked him to carry out the actions he had actually performed.  He concluded that "it would not be right for me to continue to bear the burden of defending the friend when he himself brought about the current difficult situation." He also added that in his opinion, the friend was involved in various matters in a way that was unknown to him and acted behind his back, which according to him was learned from the recording of the conversation that took place between Sharan and Ganor.
192. First, it is clear from the documents and the interrogation documentation that the phone call from the defendant's daughter was not a proactive and planned interrogation exercise, but rather a purely accidental event. The phone was accidentally left out of flight mode after the defendant himself asked to activate it in order to retrieve a contract from his e-mail inbox, and the interrogator, for his part, denied any proactive contact with his daughter.  Moreover, the defendant himself admitted in his cross-examination in court on July 6, 2023, that his suspicions may have stemmed from a conspiracy tendency, noting: "On my part, it really may be that this is not true, it could be that I am conspiratorial." Second, the transcript of the real-time interrogation from 04.09.2017 proves that despite the emotional impact of the conversation, the defendant did not break down and did not ask to give a confession at that moment following it.  In response to the interrogators' request immediately after receiving the call, the defendant replied: "No, no, we will continue the conversation..." and later clarified: "No, no, it's okay, it's...  it was...  It's a little emotional..." Third, this claim is contradicted by the various explanations provided by the defendant himself in court and by the police regarding the real motive that was the basis of his confession.
193. In his testimony in court, the defendant claimed that the decision to confess on 05.09.2017 stemmed from his strong desire to be released from detention and return home - a decision that was made during the night between 04.09 and 05.09 in the detention cell. On the other hand, before his police interrogators on 05.09.2017, the defendant explained that he chose to give his confessional version after he realized that he had been used as "a kind of pawn in the game" and that "he was being manipulated", and therefore he saw fit not to "continue to bear the burden of defending the friend".  Finally, I find it necessary to reject the argument that it was the phone call from his daughter that led the defendant to give his confession (especially since factually this is not an interrogation exercise at all, but rather a chance conversation).  The obvious conclusion from this is that this is not an improper interrogation exercise that led to a serious violation of the defendant's rights.  These rights were not violated, and therefore there is no justification for invalidating his confession for this reason.

Seizure of all of the defendant's property as leverage

194. According to the defendant's summaries (submitted on June 13, 2024) and court protocols (dated January 8, 2023 and April 12, 2022), the defense claims that the investigating authorities made improper and illegal use of the defendant's property and funds as an unusual "leverage" in order to extract a false confession from him. The defense emphasizes that while the scope of the offense attributed to Lieber amounted to about ILS 200, 000, the police froze from his accounts the sum of more than ILS 635, 000, as well as real estate assets, without any legal reason to hold such a large sum.  The interrogators took advantage of this fact aggressively and accused Lieber that his wife could not withdraw money from the bank and that she would have to turn to her parents or friends to bring money "because the account was occupied, " and that she should "beg people", while offering him a "way out" by saying: "Come on, please.  Let's change this mess, let's see how we solve the...  this mess that you have created..." (Interrogation of the defendant dated 04 September 2017, Bat/3B, page 87, line 6).

00

195. On the other hand, in the accuser's summaries (dated 02.04.2024), the prosecution responds that this is a completely routine procedure in any economic investigation, the purpose of which is to prevent the smuggling of property and funds obtained in the offense. The prosecution argues that the seizure of a couple's accounts is a necessary step when it comes to a joint account or when there is any suspicion about the funds deposited in it.  In addition, the accuser explains that in the first stage of the investigation, there is sometimes a lack of clarity, and it is impossible to know the exact scope of the offense or where the affair will expand.  Therefore, a broader approach is legitimate and possible, when later on there is a discussion with the defense attorney for the release of funds.  The prosecution's arguments are based on the fact that the freezing orders were lawfully issued with the court's approval, and that with the progress of the investigation and the formulation of the evidentiary infrastructure, some of the seized properties were released by consent on September 6, 2017 (according to Exhibit P/104).
196. In addition, Investigator Kanner made it clear to the defendant in memorandum P/57 that the police would seize and release funds in accordance with the needs of the investigation and regardless of the days of detention, a fact that shows that there was no improper connection between his confession and the economic perceptions. The prosecution emphasizes that Investigator Farjun only reflected to the defendant the complex reality of economic enforcement (as is evident from his testimony in the transcript of January 8, 2023, starting at page 111), and that the defendant acted with the close legal guidance and advice of his attorneys throughout the entire process.
197. Beyond that, I will note that I have not found a case law that recognizes this defense claim. Police interrogators may present the interrogee with legitimate interrogation and enforcement measures that they may take, such as the seizure and forfeiture of property regulated by law.  This reflection does not amount to a threat or an improper means of interrogation, and does not harm the interrogee's "free will" in its normative sense.
198. Therefore, notification of these legal steps does not establish grounds for invalidating the confession, in accordance with the principle of "no harm - no disqualification" (Criminal Appeal 6359/21 State of Israel v. Alaa al-Amrani (September 8, 2022)).  Seizure of assets and property during the investigation stage for the purpose of ensuring future forfeiture is a legal and legitimate enforcement tool that is anchored in legislation (such as the Prohibition of Money Laundering Law or the Criminal Procedure Ordinance).  Since this is a legal authority of the enforcement authorities, which is intended to preserve the status of assets and prevent property smuggling, the mere use of it or the notification of the suspect of its operation does not constitute an "illegal" action or crossing red lines.  They do not impair the integrity of the criminal proceedings or lead to the disqualification of evidence (Miscellaneous Criminal Applications 827/22 Nivin Julani v.  State of Israel (April 13, 2022); Criminal Appeal 3390/19 Aharon Avitan v.  State of Israel (November 21, 2019)).
199. A confession will be invalidated under section 12 ofthe Evidence Ordinance or by virtue of the doctrine of judicial inadmissibility only when extreme improper means (the "ancestors of inadmissibility") are used, such as violence, threats of violence, humiliation, unfair temptation and intimidation, or unfair interrogation methods that deny the interrogee's autonomy of free will. Taking legal enforcement measures and lawful seizure of property are not included in these improper means (Criminal Appeal 10049/08 Rateb Abu Issa v.  State of Israel (August 23, 2012)).  In view of all of the above, I find this argument to be rejected.

Accumulation of the alleged defects

200. The defense argues that the accumulation of all the defects - from the dramatic arrest at Ben Gurion Airport, through the interrogation in the car, the extensive seizure of property and the intrusion into the mobile phone, to the disparaging discourse and the phone call received from his daughter - amounts to a "holistic trivial" that negated the defendant's free will. According to the defense, even if each defect in itself does not justify disqualification, the accumulated psychological pressure created an intolerable situation that led to a false confession, only in order to "bring the nightmare to an end".  However, an in-depth legal and factual examination of the investigative materials leads to the conclusion that the accumulation of these alleged defects does not lead to the invalidation of the defendant's confessions.
201. The main reason for rejecting the cumulative claim lies in the fact that throughout his interrogations, the defendant demonstrated resistance, sophistication, and complete control, which completely contradict the thesis that "his spirit was broken." The interrogation materials show that the defendant knew how to set clear boundaries for his interrogators, chose when to respond and when to use the right to remain silent, and consistently refused to incriminate others involved, such as Gary Hakim or Hagar Sharan. This calculated and selective behavior proves that his autonomy of free will was well preserved, and that he did not act out of a loss of psychological choice.
202. In addition, there is a clear disconnect in the causal connection between the alleged means of pressure and the delivery of the confession. The "breakthrough" and the defendant's confessional version on September 5, 2017, were given immediately after a frontal and private consultation he held with his attorney, Adv. Yair Regev.  Moreover, at this time, it was explicitly made clear to the defendant by Investigator Kanner (in memorandum P/57) that his cooperation was unconditional and that he was not promised anything in return, and the defendant even confirmed in the interrogation room that he understood this and was disappointed by it; This fact undermines the claim that the confession was extracted from him due to false promises or temptation that overwhelmed his spirit.
203. Most of the actions for which the defense is complaining, such as the seizure of funds in the amount of more than ILS 635, 000 and the aggravation of suspicion of bribery, constitute legal and legitimate enforcement tools that do not belong to the extremist "fathers of wrongdoing" such as violence or categorical humiliation.
204. Finally, decisive support for the truth and admissibility of the confession lies in the fact that the defendant did not retract his version even in his later interrogations, including in the interrogation that took place a week after he was released from detention, when he was a completely free man. Therefore, in the test of the overall balance of the Issacharov rule and section 12 ofthe Evidence Ordinance, the acceptance of the confession does not violate the fairness of the proceeding and there is no reason to disqualify it.

Weight of Ganor's Message

The Defense's Arguments

205. The defense's argument is that Ganor's version is worth nothing, and that its evidentiary weight is negligible to non-existent (Defendant's Summaries, p. 1).  According to her, not a single word of Ganor's can be believed, since he mixes truth with falsehood ("Half Truth and Half Lie" - Defendant's Summaries, pp.  1, 63), and his memory or credibility should not be relied upon (Defendant's Summaries, p.  1).  Accordingly, the defense petitions to give zero weight to his versions, or alternatively, to consider him as a verifying witness and interpreting documents and evidence only, without any independent weight to his statements made in a vacuum (Defendant's Summaries, pp.  57, 69).
206. The defense points to Ganor's modus operandi, according to which he dresses the "garment of lies" on top of a "hanger of truth" (defendant's summaries, pp. 1-2).  Thus, for example, Ganor confirmed that there was a real meeting in a café in Airport City with him, Lieber, and Sharan, but gave him a criminal and false incriminating twist when he claimed that there the three agreed to promote the appointment of Avriel Bar Yosef or to the submarine deal 7, 8, 9 (defendant's summaries, pp.  62-63, 107; transcript 08/03/2023, p.  527; P/71A, p.  161, line 21).  According to the defense, this is a dangerous witness who invents fabricated stories at lightning speed (defendant's summaries, p.  62), while using the defendant as a "band-aid" to plug holes in his version every time his name comes up (defendant's summaries, p.  62; transcript of March 12, 2023, p.  565).
207. According to the defense, Ganor's interrogation on August 30, 2017 was the interrogation in which his false version against Lieber and Sharan was "hermetically sewn and closed" two days before the planned break-in (defendant's summaries, p. 81).  The defense further claims that the interrogators offered Ganor the answers they wanted to hear in order to "whitewash" his missing version (defendant's summaries, p.  82), and that Ganor extracted the erroneous data that was placed before him in order to satisfy them and keep them in negotiations with him (defendant's summaries, pp.  61, 82).  In this interrogation, the issue of ammonia even came up for the first time, which Gagnor did not mention at all on his own initiative during more than a month of previous interrogations as a state witness (defendant's summaries, p.  72).
208. The defense argues that Ganor does not have a uniform, continuous, and concrete version at the core of the dispute, but rather a variety of contradictory and changing versions (Defendant's Summaries, p. 107).  Once he claimed that he paid for services provided by Sharan, once for assistance in the matter of corvette with the Accountant General, and once for the submarine deal 7, 8, 9; once he claimed that Lieber provided services and once claimed that he did nothing for him and acted only as a "straw man" (Defendant's Summaries, pp.  104, 107).  This extreme inconsistency, along with Ganor's retraction in 2019 from his incriminating version of Lieber and Sharan (defendant's summaries, pp.  61, 102-105; accusing motion, p.  70), undermines the ability to base any factual findings on his basis (defendant's summaries, p.  107).
209. The defense details specific "substantial lies" in Ganor's statements to the police, which are proven to be false by means of objective evidence (Defendant's Briefs, p. 83).  Among other things, Ganor lied when he claimed that a certain conference call on October 19, 2014 was an initial introductory conversation between Lieber and Shemer, even though the two had already exchanged emails earlier (Defendant's Summaries, p.  83).  He also falsely claimed that he tried to ignore Lieber and did not maintain contact with him, while the media data show that Ganor himself initiated the relationship and contacted him on his own initiative (Defendant's Summaries, p.  84).
210. Another lie that the defense points to is Ganor's referral to an alleged text message dated September 22, 2015 from Lieber ("Hi. Talk to me.  There are updates"), a statement that does not exist at all in the media studies and in the evidence material (Defendant's Summaries, p.  84).  In addition, Ganor's suppressed claim that all the activity with Lieber was "fictitious" and intended only for money laundering turned out to be false (Defendant's Summaries, pp.  93-94).  According to the defense, there is no logic in producing dozens of phone calls and meetings over two years just to launder payment (Defendant's Summaries, p.  93), and other evidence confirms that Lieber did indeed perform actual work, such as Shemer's testimony that Lieber dealt with the ammonia issue (Defendant's Summaries, p.  94).
211. In court, Ganor was revealed to be an evasive witness who did not respond to the matter (Defendant's Summaries, p. 105), who was entrenched in his "captivity workshop" (Defendant's Summaries, p.  58) and his false claims (Transcript 15/09/24).  The defense emphasizes that Ganor's statements were positively contradicted by evidence and other statements submitted with consent, such as Sharon Shalom's statement (Transcript 15/09/24, p.  1084; Defendant's Summaries, p.  69).  In addition, the very fact that the accuser chose not to prosecute other senior officials involved, such as Shimron and Marom, whom Ganor incriminated while he was a state witness, testifies to the fact that she herself found serious flaws in the circumstances of his statements.

The accuser's arguments

212. The accuser categorically rejects the defense's arguments that Ganor's testimony is false or weightless, and wishes to prefer and accept his first version as a state witness as the only version of truth (accusing summaries, paragraphs 25, 559). The accuser emphasizes that Ganor's original testimony to the police was coherent, detailed, and backed by a variety of corroborations and significant external evidence, including the defendant's own confession (accusing summaries, paragraphs 25, 562, 752).  According to her, Ganor's testimony in court, despite the contradictions raised in it, did not impair the authenticity of his original version as a state witness (accusing summaries, paragraphs 25, 750).
213. In response to the claim that Ganor fabricated the story of the bribe in order to appease the investigators, the accuser clarifies that it was Ganor who first revealed the names of Sharan and the defendant on his own initiative, already at the stage of the negotiations (accusing summaries, paragraphs 25, 558). The interrogators had no prior suspicion about Sharan or the defendant in this context, and therefore could not implant these details in his mouth (accusing summaries, paragraphs 33, 558).  Had Ganor wished to fabricate false accusations, he could have incriminated Minister Steinitz - with whom he met and even delivered donations for him through straw men - but he was precise in his testimony and refrained from doing so (accusing summaries, paragraphs 584-587).
214. The accuser defines the defense's claim that the interrogators implanted data into Ganor's mouth as "outrageous and completely contrary to the evidence" (accusing summaries, paragraph 33). The police investigators performed their work faithfully, and Ganor himself described the bribery route and the use of intermediaries such as the defendant (accusing summaries, paragraph 33).  The "fouls" interrogation in question (P/75 interrogation of 30/08/2017) constituted in fact a legitimate confrontation by Ganor with the evidence and documents found in the interrogation material, and these are not improper investigative actions (accusing summaries, paragraphs 24, 553-554).
215. As for the change in Ganor's version in 2019 (in which he claimed that the facts were true but that the payments were legitimate and did not constitute bribes), the accuser claims that this is an inconsistent and unacceptable version (accusing summaries, sections 559, 561). Ganor repeated as a mantra the claim that no bribe was transferred without providing substantive answers to the investigators (accusing summaries, sections 583).  Therefore, the accuser seeks to apply section 10A of the Evidence Ordinance, to give preference to Ganor's foreign statements as a state witness before the police, and to give them full weight (accusing summaries, sections 733, 753).
216. The accuser rejects the arguments against the reliability of the details of the version and points to the existence of substantial corroboration and external evidentiary assistance that corroborates Ganor's statements (accusing summaries, paragraphs 25, 746, 751). Among other things, Ganor was found to possess hard object evidence such as the "table of advisors", from Ronen Shemer's notebooks, the diaries of Secretary Josie Singer, e-mails, media studies, and telephone emissions (accusing summaries, paragraphs 745, 747-748).  This evidence, some of which was referred to by Ganor himself, cross-references and corroborates his version with the police beyond any reasonable doubt (accusing summaries, paragraphs 733, 749).
217. Regarding the date of termination of Sharan's position and the payment in August 2016, the accuser clarifies that the new figure - according to which Sharan officially terminated his employment only in September 2016 - does not contradict the prosecution's thesis, but rather worsens the situation of those involved (paragraph 35 in the framework of the document "Completing the Accuser's Summaries"). The accuser explains that it was proven that Sharan received the bribe money while he was a public servant serving in the Prime Minister's Office (accusing summaries, section 650).  Ganor himself explained in his interrogation that unlike other bribes to whom he paid only after the termination of their position, in Sharan's case he disguised the payment through intermediaries such as the defendant in order to neutralize the fear (accusing summaries, paragraph 597).
218. In summary, the accuser argues that Ganor's version to the police as a state witness is coherent and stable, which fits perfectly with the objective evidence and with the defendant's confessions (accusing summaries, paragraphs 25, 394, 733). The accuser is of the opinion that all the conditions required to receive Ganor's statements were met, and that the external evidence and his testimony are sufficient to lead to the defendant's conviction (accusing summaries, paragraphs 394, 753).  On the other hand, the accuser rejects the defendant's changing line of defense and defines his claims as "baseless allegations" (accusing summaries, paragraphs 494).

Contradictions in Ganor's statements and testimony

219. There is no doubt that the witness, Miki Ganor, changed his versions substantially between the period of his time as a state witness and the stage at which he reneged on the agreement; this is clearly learned from his conduct and interrogations throughout the entire proceeding. Both the accuser and the defense point to these radical changes in their summaries, from his detailed statements as a state witness, through his interrogations in March 2019 in which he tried to retract his statements, to his testimony before the court, in which he even directly admitted: "As a state witness, I lied, unfortunately, to the terrible great loss" (p.  607, line 8).  During the trial, it emerged that Ganor's retraction of his incriminating version was reserved and convoluted, while giving contradictory and evasive versions that vary "here and there."
220. This dynamic and inconsistent conduct throughout the timeline of the entire affair testifies unequivocally to the frequent changes in the witness's versions, and illustrates that this is a constantly changing narrative. One of the essential contradictions relates to the coordination of the meeting with Minister Steinitz; In one statement, Ganor stated that "the meeting with Yuval Steinitz was closed by David Sharan, " while in the same interrogation he claimed that "the person who arranged the meeting with Steinitz was Avriel and not Sharan." Later in the interrogation, he changed his version and claimed that Sharan only "informed Minister Steinitz of the purpose of the meeting" (P/59, P/65, P/68, P/71).  In court, Ganor testified that: "My relationship with David Sharan was Yuval Steinitz.  That is what interested me.  David Sharan is not at a decision point and not at a point to help in the decision.  You are a unique and special supplier.  One and only thing David Sharan did, whether it was a donation or not, I think he was, not sure, the one who helped in an introductory meeting between the shipyard's CEO and Yuval Steinitz, whom I think he wanted to meet." (Transcript of February 12, 2023, page 419, lines 5-8).
221. There is another material contradiction regarding the tripartite meeting in Airport City; In his version as a state witness, Ganor claimed that the meeting was intended "to promote the submarine deal..." (P/71A). However, in court on March 8, 2023, he claimed that the purpose of the meeting was to "promote Avriel" to the position of head of the National Security Council.  Later in his cross-examination, he changed his words completely, did not remember the content of the meeting, and claimed that it was merely a "gossip conversation about Avriel."
222. Regarding the nature of the relationship with the defendant Tzachi Lieber, in his version as a state witness, Ganor claimed that Lieber "never gave him any service" and served as a "payment straw man" and as an intermediary for the transfer of money and messages to Sharan (P/66, P/71, P/75). On the other hand, in his testimony in court, he changed his version and claimed that he paid Lieber "because he helped me with ammonia and offset" and that Lieber wanted to engage in many projects, and in his 2019 interrogations he even confirmed that "Lieber received money for what he did like other media consultants" (minutes of the hearing of February 12, 2023, page 419, line 14 ff.).
223. Another contradiction relates to verifying the transfer of the bribe money; In his interrogation as a state witness, Ganor claimed that he had confirmed by telephone with David Sharan before making the first payment "that the money was intended for him" (P/66A, page 138, line 24). On the other hand, in his later interrogations from 2019, he admitted that "he never claimed that he explicitly verified that the money had reached Sharan, but claimed that he understood from him between the lines that this was indeed the case" (P/80, line 109).
224. Another contradiction arose regarding the cruise offer; In his testimony before the court, Ganor claimed that "David Sharan and Tzachi Lieber suggested that he go on a cruise." After being confronted with his version at the police, he changed his statement and admitted that he "does not remember whether Lieber was part of the planned cruise" (hearing of March 12, 2023, page 564, line 13).
225. There are also contradictions as to the reason for the payment and Sharan's actions; In some of his versions, Ganor claimed that the payment to Sharan was made for assistance from 2013 on the subject of the "corbets" with the Accountant General of the Ministry of Finance. On other occasions, he linked the payments to assistance in the matter of "submarines 7, 8, 9" while Sharan was working in the Prime Minister's Office, and in other versions he claimed that Sharan "did not ask for a bribe, but rather a hint" (P/71A, page 126, line 11).
226. During his cross-examination in court on 04/04/2023, when confronted with the contradictions in his versions, Ganor replied that "as a state witness, I lied, unfortunately, to the terrible rabbi" (transcript of the hearing of 04/04/2023, page 607, line 8). He explained that as a state witness he tried to "satisfy the demand" of the investigative body.  According to the summary of the arguments in the case, Ganor claimed that he had added to his testimony "everyone who knew and was connected to the Prime Minister" (transcript of the hearing of February 12, 2023, p.  413, paras.  10-11 of the transcript).
227. In addition, Ganor described in his testimony (transcript of the hearing of February 12, 2023, pp. 414-415 of the transcript) that he had "mixed" the defendant and others without any real connection, saying: "Everyone who passed by me, I mixed him into the bribe grinder." In the minutes of the hearing dated April 4, 2023, Ganor confirmed that he had returned to his original version, which constitutes the true version of "what was and what was not." Regarding the change in his version in March 2019, as documented in the memorandum dated March 20, 2019 detailed in the defendant's summaries (p.  102), Ganor clarified that "the payments made are legitimate and everyone who received money from him, worked for his money, no one received a bribe from him."
228. In his subsequent interrogation (documented in Exhibit P/80, page 3, line 55), he said about the change in his position: "I was dragged into the interpretation of bribery." He added that he was willing to stand on the witness stand on the basis of "the dry facts and the data, " but that he could not stand behind the interpretation of bribery, which does not exist in this case.

Pelginan Divora

229. As can be seen, Ganor contradicted himself on many points, and perhaps it can even be said a great deal, but according to the case law and the rule of "Pelginan Divora", the existence of many contradictions in the testimony does not necessarily lead to the invalidation of the entire version, and the court is entitled to accept parts of it and reject others. To this end, it is necessary to carefully examine the circumstances of the delivery of the statement and the interests that were behind it at the time, such as the witness's position under the state's witness agreement or the pressure that existed during the interrogation.  This decision will be based on the degree to which the statements are in accordance with reality, while giving real weight to those statements that are backed up by external documents and objective evidence that verifies the content of the testimony.

Pressure by the Interrogators - The External Weight of Ganor's Confession

230. First, Ganor's claim that he "mixed" Sharan and the defendant in the "bribery grinder" due to the pressure of the investigators is concealed head-on, since he himself exposed them on his own initiative. A view of Ganor's interrogation videos gives the impression that he was the one who led and initiated the investigation process.  The investigation team did not know Sharan or the defendant in this context at all, and the person who exposed Sharan as a bribe recipient even at the negotiation stage was Ganor himself (P/67; P/58; P/66A, p.  138).  It was only in his capacity as a state witness that Ganor brought up the names of Sharan and the defendant as accomplices in the transfer of the bribe money (P/62, P/66, P/66A).
231. As to the external weight of the confession, it was found to be substantially corroborated by a number of pieces of evidence received in the case. Ganor gave his interrogators, of his own free will, a detailed and reliable confession that is substantially supported by external evidence, which amounts to the requirement to substantiate "something else" to his confession.
232. Ganor refers on his own initiative to the table of advisors and Tzachi Lieber in his statement as a state witness marked P/66A (at p. 221, paras.  5-38), where he was presented with the tables and he said: "Well, a new player - Tzachi Lieber...  Tzachi Lieber is a media consultant, payment is to David Sharan." In the same notice (P/66A, at paras.  581-582, 586-589), after seeing Lieber's name in the tables, Ganor explained that the payments paid to him were in fact payments intended for Sharan.  In addition, in the framework of the tables themselves, marked as P/36, Lieber's name appears in the records dated November 10.  2015, 31.3.2016 and 23.7.2016.
233. These tables document the planning of payments to Liber in the sum of €6, 000 per year for the years 2014-2017, as well as the actual payment of €12, 000 for the years 2014-2015 (P/36, at pp. 13-18).  In his testimony in court (transcript, p.  429, paras.  17-19), Ganor confirmed: "And I referred to the tables.  I had no reason to hide the tables, " but later claimed (pp.  434-435) that this was a marginal and non-serious work tool.  In addition, in the minutes of the hearing dated April 4, 2023, Ganor explained that the table of advisors was a "very, very dynamic thing" that served as an ongoing work tool and not as a "legal document."
234. The matter of the table of advisors, which constitutes clear objective evidence, and the various explanations given by Ganor to this table must be examined on the basis of logic and common sense. It appears that the document was prepared for the purpose of his business, and the impression is that the table of advisers is in fact Ganor's way of monitoring his expenses.  There is no logic in Ganor's explanations that this is a marginal tool or a worthless document, as he claimed after the state's witness agreement was canceled.
235. A businessman who wishes to monitor his expenses makes use of accurate records of the amounts of expenses and their dates. The impression from his various explanations is that this is an authentic auxiliary tool that Ganor used, and his explanation while he was a state witness seems more logical and reasonable than his later explanations.  In these circumstances, when Ganor's explanation in his interrogation as a state witness is consistent with common sense and is supported by objective evidence, I find it to be determined that Ganor's statements should be given great weight as supporting evidence for the bribery version.
236. According to the documents presented, the notebook of Ronen Shemer (Ganor's financier) supports the version that Tzachi Lieber was operated mainly because he was a liaison to David Sharan, and not as a provider of real professional services. This notebook explicitly states: "Tzachi Lieber, a friend of David Sharan" (P/47).  This record refines and strengthens Ganor's confession, in his status as a state witness, that the root of Lieber's employment stemmed solely from his closeness to Sharan and was intended to serve as a cover for the bribery relationship with him.
237. In addition, the notebook documents activities that are defined in Ganor's version as fictitious attempts to "pour content" in a proactive manner, in order to disguise the nature of the payments and give them a legitimate guise. Among other things, Shemer's notebook states: "Yitzhak Lieber is a friend of David Sharan and to see if it is worthwhile to meet with Minister Peretz" (P/47), and there is also a record for scheduling a meeting with Attorney Daniel Cohen ")through Tzachi Lieber)." According to Ganor's version, these actions and the records in respect of them are intended to create a misrepresentation of consulting services for payments that were actually intended to be transferred to Sharan.
238. As for Secretary Josie Singer's notebooks, they support Ronen Shemer's notebooks. This is reflected in the fact that the meetings recorded in Ronen Shemer's notebooks are fully supported by Josie Singer's notebooks.  The confirmation of Josie Singer's and Ronen Shemer's records constitutes corroboration that verifies Ganor's confession to the police.
239. As for the interrogation materials - including the e-mail messages, computer and cellular outputs, and media studies - it can be determined that they constitute "significant external evidentiary assistance." This evidence joins Ganor's confession and strengthens the version that Lieber did not perform any real work, but only served as a cover for the transfer of bribes. It is based on a detailed cross-reference of data that supports Ganor's testimony to the police as a state witness, including cross-referencing his diaries, inquiries, and phone calls.
240. One of the main pieces of evidence is the draft of the engagement agreement that Lieber sent to Ganor by email, which "was never signed." In addition, during a search of Lieber's mobile phone, he pulled out from his e-mail box "the standard contract that was not even addressed to Ganor and did not contain any detail regarding Ganor - from the scope of the payment to the nature of the work" (P/44). The presence of this empty and unsigned contract in the email box supports the claim that there was no real and binding employment agreement between the two.
241. The media studies and cellular data reveal that the few e-mails exchanged on the subject of ammonia or regarding the Thyssencorp delegation were supposedly intended to present evidence of professional activity, but in practice no real activity took place. This correspondence was intended to create only a misrepresentation of business activity.  Thus, for example, when Ganor searches for e-mails in his inbox, he finds only two e-mails (P/75A, p.  99):

Interrogee, Miki Ganor:                      It's an activity ?