Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 19066-05-21 State of Israel v. Yitzhak Lieber - part 8

Researcher No. 3, Shlomi Pereg'Ven:            which is actually already !Demands money from you?

Interrogee , Miki Ganor :                    Yes and then ...

Investigator No. 1, Bat Chen Cohen:  Wait a moment when he says [00:54:05.147].

Interrogee , Miki Ganor :                    And then.

Investigator No. 1, Bat Chen Cohen: That money is already required if you verify with David.

Interrogee , Miki Ganor :                    Yes, I said, I repeat.

Investigator No. 1, Bat Chen Cohen: So who, who's turning to money? Or who's making this [00:54:15.742] request at all?

Interrogee , Miki Ganor :                    I guess it starts with my forehead.

Investigator No. 1, Bat Chen Cohen: or- K.

Interrogee , Miki Ganor :        And he tells me what, I guess since I usually gave some [00:54:28.946] tag number for payments so I assume he asked for payment.

Investigator No. 1, Bat Chen Cohen: Yes.

Researcher No. 3, Shlomi Pereg'Ven:            [00:54:38.986] It requires a badge amount.

Interrogee, Miki Ganor:                      No, I said.

Researcher No. 3, Shlomi Pereg'Ven:            He.

Interrogee, Miki Ganor:          [00:54:39.472] No, I said he asked what payment was due and I guess I set the payment even though it's the opposite of normal in order to reduce it [00:54:50.594] and then also in my opinion between the request and the meeting or the hint I also made sure with David that it was.

It can be learned from Ganor's explanations that the connection to Tzachi was for the purpose of managing the bribery proceeding with Sharan.  The degree of caution taken by the two required a third party involved, and the defendant served in this position.

245. In summary, it can be said that the external evidentiary weight of Ganor's statements to the police is supported by the table of advisors (P/36), which constitutes clear objective evidence and a significant reinforcement of the bribery version. This table documents the planning of payments to Liber in the amount of €6, 000 per year for the years 2014-2017, as well as the actual payment of €12, 000 for the years 2014-2015.  These records, dated November 10.  2015, March 31, 2016, and July 23, 2016, constitute an authentic auxiliary tool used by Ganor to monitor his expenses in real time, and strengthen his claim that the funds were actually intended for David Sharan.
246. In addition, Ronen Shemer's notebook (P/47) strengthens the version that Lieber was employed because of his closeness to Sharan, as it explicitly states: "Tzachi Lieber, a friend of David Sharan." In addition, the notebook documents fictitious activities intended to "pour content" and disguise the nature of the payments, such as a planned meeting with Minister Peretz or a meeting with Attorney Daniel Cohen. These records are supported and further supported by the records of Secretary Josie Singer, which verify Ganor's confession to the police.
247. External evidence, such as the draft engagement agreement (P/44) that was never signed and the blank standard contract found on Lieber's mobile device - which lacked contact details or payment amounts - supports the claim that there was no real employment agreement between the two. In addition, text messages (P/30) attest to an ongoing lack of communication and a lack of action, as can be seen when Lieber notes in May 2015 that the two "have not met for a long time."
248. The media studies and the cellular data reveal that the few exchanges of emails on the subject of ammonia or regarding the Thyssencorp delegation were completely fictitious and were intended for the purpose of creating a false representation of consulting services. Ganor himself confirmed in his interrogation (P/75A) that the two emails that were found did not constitute even an "eighth of activity" and were not even transferred to him at all.  This figure clearly indicates the absence of any substance or "flesh" in the claim regarding the provision of professional service.
249. Moreover, Ganor's media studies and telephone outputs (P/75A) show a lack of ongoing contact and an intention to lower the profile of the contact with Lieber in order to establish direct contact with David Sharan. Ganor confirmed that Ronen Shemer's communication with Lieber was done under his direction and revolved mainly around payment issues.
     In addition, Ganor testified that he made sure in a phone call with David Sharan, even before the first payment was made, that Sharan's intention was indeed that the money would be transferred to him through Lieber.  All the articulated evidence supports Ganor's version, as he was a state witness, as a version that is supported by evidence in a solid and correct manner.

Weaving a plot

250. Second, Ganor's version of the "libel" is inconsistent with the fact that he refrained from fabricating false accusations about other senior figures that the investigators ostensibly sought to incriminate, such as Minister Steinitz. Ganor maintained throughout his testimony that he did not know how the officials acted vis-à-vis those senior officials, and did not incriminate Minister Steinitz in his meetings with him, even though he could have done so if he had wished to lie [P/62, P/63].  This restraining conduct contradicts his later explanation before the honorable court, according to which "everyone who passed by me I mixed him into the bribery grinder" [transcript of December 12, 2023, p.  414, line 29].
251. It was proven that it was precisely these figures, of government ministers, that constituted the main and declared target of the police investigators, who repeatedly asked Ganor to "satisfy the demand" and provide incriminating information about them. If Ganor wanted to fabricate a false story in order to please his interrogators and save his skin as part of the negotiations for an agreement with the state, the easiest and most obvious way would have been to tie the senior leaders directly to the bribery axis.  Ganor met with Minister Steinitz, participated in forums he chaired, and even assisted his primary elections through donations from straw men, so that it was easy for him to establish a false and credible bribery story against him [transcript of February 12, 2023, page 419, lines 5-8].
252. Despite the evidentiary temptation and police pressure, Ganor was remarkably accurate in his version and insisted all along that he was testifying only to his direct interface with Sharan himself [P/67, P/66A]. He refused to fabricate false accusations, such as the claim that the illegitimate actions were with the knowledge of the minister or that he had given him money in cash, thus proving that his version was not intended to "sell the false goods" at any price to the investigators.  Limiting his factual version only to those involved against whom he did commit actual offenses, such as Sharan and the defendant, clearly strengthens the authenticity of his words and teaches that this is a true version that was not extracted from his heart [P/66A, p.  134].

Lieber's version of work

253. Third, Lieber's alleged work for Ganor focused on strategic consulting and public relations, primarily the promotion of the tender for the construction of the ammonia plant, regulatory matters and the issue of reciprocal procurement (OFFSET) (minutes of the hearing of July 6, 2023, N/64). Lieber described that his work included work meetings, consultation, attempts to coordinate meetings with decision makers, as well as answering questions of "atmosphere" and gossip addressed to him by Ganor regarding the progress of the vessel transactions [P/1A at pp.  13-14, P/1B at p.  58].  Ganor himself confirmed in his interrogation of August 30, 2017 (P/75) that he had asked Liber for help in promoting the issue of ammonia and the issue of reciprocal procurement [P/75, line 112].
254. In order to prove the performance of the work, according to the defense, authentic internal documents of Ganor and his employees were presented, attesting to Lieber's operation in real time. Among the evidence is an email dated January 11, 2016 sent to the shipyard in Germany, stating that Lieber would assist in the matter of the OFFSET (P/30), as well as email correspondence from October 2014 regarding the visit of the Thyssenkrupp delegation to Israel (P/94, N/17, P/75).  In addition, the notebooks of Ganor's right-hand man, Ronen Shemer, documented Lieber's concrete tasks, including handling the offset events and scheduling a meeting with Minister Peretz through Attorney Daniel Cohen (P/47, P/48).
255. Another significant indication that supports the defense's claim, as it presented it, is the existence of more than 150 documented media interactions (conversations and messages) between Lieber and Ganor and Ronen Shemer in the period between 2014 and 2016 (P/26). In addition, Ronen Shemer himself confirmed in his statement to the police that Lieber provided Lenor with services on the subject of ammonia (P/94).  Finally, in Ganor's bank accounts and in the documents of the accountant, Lieber's name appears alongside other consultants in the approved payment lists - a figure that attests, according to the defense, to legitimate business conduct towards him in real time (P/48, P/49).
256. Despite the defense's arguments and the evidence presented for the existence of a business relationship between Ganor and the defendant, I am of the opinion that these arguments should be rejected in light of other evidence that attests to the different conduct of the relationship between the two, as well as in view of problematic explanations that are inconsistent with the objective evidence. Ganor's version that the payments to the defendant were paid for "real work" on the subject of ammonia and in the reciprocal procurement is contradicted by the evidence material and the defendant's own confession.  The defendant admitted in his interrogation on September 4, 2017, that "there was no work" regarding the ammonia (P/3B, page 17, line 33).  In addition, Ganor himself found it difficult in his testimony before the court to give a coherent answer as to the defendant's actions, including the reason why he refused to send him the ammonia tender documents if he had indeed worked on it (hearing of July 6, 2023, page 719, line 12), while Ronen Shemer stated in his interrogation that Ganor refused to give Lieber the details of the tender (P/94).
257. In Ganor's first version as a state witness, he categorically claimed that Lieber had not actually performed any work for him, and that the payments paid to him, even though they were presented externally as "media consulting", were completely fictitious (P/68, page 12, line 362). According to this version, Lieber served as a "straw man for payment" and in practice did not provide him with any service of any kind, including in the matter of the ammonia plant, in which there was no actual activity on Lieber's part (P/68, page 12, line 354, P/75, line 67, P/66, line 688).
258. Ganor stated explicitly and decisively in his interrogations that the payments to Lieber were fictitious and were not paid for real work, but were used as a cover ("cover for the bribery conspiracy") for the transfer of money to David Sharan [P/75, P/71, P/68, P/66]. Ganor emphasized that during his years of acquaintance with Lieber he was not required to consult the media at all, and that in practice there was no real activity on Lieber's part - neither real meetings nor the provision of services on the subject of ammonia or the reciprocal procurement [P/75, P/71].  I would like to point out that despite the defendant's attempts to present work that was supposedly done for payment - and indeed the defense worked for the purpose of presenting such evidence, as I noted - this thesis should be rejected.  Ganor's statements clearly give the impression that with regard to the work that the defendant claims he performed, at least Ganor did not believe that it was work that justified any payment.  The acts of work that Lieber claims are nothing more than a cover in Ganor's eyes for the real reason for which he called Lieber and the payment was made.  In any event, it can be determined that even if Lieber perceived his actions as work, he did not receive payment for these acts according to Ganor.  The payment was actually made for the purpose of giving the bribe, and Lieber did indeed transfer these funds to Sharan in accordance with Ganor's instructions.  This means that at the end of the day, with the money he received being transferred, Lieber himself did not believe that the payment paid to him was indeed paid for the work he did, according to him.
259. In his first interrogations with the police, Lieber himself found it very difficult to "add any content" to his alleged work for Ganor, and did not know how to detail a single active action that he carried out other than general headings such as "the ammonia tender" or the use of the general term "meetings" [P/1B at pp. 6-8].  In addition, although Lieber initially claimed that there was a signed contract detailing the method of payment, he was forced to admit later that he did not have such a contract, and that the draft document he presented did not contain any concrete details regarding Ganor or the nature of the work [P/1B at pp.  11-13].
260. With regard to the matter of the contract, Lieber's version is a developing version - a fact that constitutes a strong indication that the professional relationship was fictitious and served only as a cover. In his interrogation, Lieber repeatedly referred to a contract that was allegedly signed with Ganor, but when he was asked to retrieve it from his mobile phone, it was found that the contract was an unspecified and detailed document (P/44).  From a statement in which it was stated that he worked according to a contract, the investigation developed into the absence of a satisfactory explanation as to why the contract was not signed, which contradicted the defendant's initial version himself.
261. Ganor himself repeatedly confirmed in his interrogations that the draft of the engagement agreement that Lieber sent him was never signed [P/45]. In his interrogation in 2019, Ganor was unable to give a coherent answer as to why the agreement was not signed, and noted in his testimony before the court that the fact that Lieber received sporadic payments over a long period of time "represents the lack of agreement" [hearing of March 8, 2023, on page 516, starting with line 19].

Defense Witnesses Media Advisors

262. The defense witnesses, media consultants Roni Rimon and Aviv Bushinsky, testified that in the strategic consulting industry, there is no obligation to have a regulated employment contract. In his testimony, Bushinsky explained that "at these levels, there was something gentlemanly from each other" and that "there was no contract, there was nothing, it was all viral" [Transcript 16.01.2024, page 1065, line 19].  Rimon and Bushinsky confirmed that this method of engagement - without a written contract, without defining payment terms or milestones - is a common and accepted way in the industry [Minutes of January 16, 2024, page 1076, line 7, N/64].
263. Regarding the amount of the payment, Bushinsky and Rimon testified that there is no direct connection or correlation between the actual payment and the scope of the work, and Bushinsky even defined the sums that Lieber received as "small money" [Minutes of January 16, 2024, page 1070, line 7]. Bushinsky testified that "everything is reasonable...  to pay 20 is reasonable to pay 30 is reasonable...  with a little work in a lot of work", and that it is possible to receive the same payment for a single phone call or for dozens of calls [Transcript of January 16, 2024, p.  1065, line 13].  Roni Rimon even noted in his testimony that in his opinion Lieber received "too little" for his consulting relationship with Ganor [transcript of January 16, 2024, p.  1084, line 8].
264. Regarding the prolonged time gaps between the payments, the witnesses explained that this stems from the practice of "send to your father-in-law" and the perception of "building" the client in the long term, without expecting immediate consideration [Minutes of January 16, 2024, pp. 1087-1089].  Rimon explained that there are clients who pay on an ongoing basis without the firm actually performing concrete work for them, only in order to maintain the relationship, to "drink coffee with us from time to time" or so that the firm will serve as its "insurance company" [Minutes of January 16, 2024, p.  1091, line 8].
265. This argument of the defense is problematic in the sense that I cannot determine that the media consulting market is a broken market in which there are no employment agreements and it does not operate as stated in their testimony; however, the conduct of the defendant and Ganor is not consistent with the general conduct of the market. The fact that the defendant saw fit to send Ganor a contract testifies that the two did not act in the manner in which the market operates at the verbal level as described, and secondly - the sporadic payments, as described by the witnesses, are paid following actual work, whereas in the present case, according to the parties, it is not clear that such work actually took place.  In addition, the defendant did not send Ganor a demand for payment, and it is not clear how the amount of the payment was determined, when it is clear that the person who determined the amount of the payment was the customer.  The only evidence supporting the defense's version is the invoices issued by the defendant.  The defense further emphasizes that if it had been an ostensible agreement intended to cover up criminal activity, it is reasonable to assume that Lieber would have made sure to fill in all the missing details in it in a meticulous manner in order to avoid suspicion, and that the fact that the agreement was an imperfect draft strengthens the argument that this was normal business conduct and that Liber acted with Ganor as a simple service provider.  I am unable to accept this explanation.
266. The testimony of the witnesses Bushinsky and Rimon shows that the entirety of the conduct in the defendant's case points to extreme unreasonableness, which is inconsistent with normal business conduct, even given the flexibility that characterizes the strategic consulting industry. The defendant never spoke about money with Ganor, sent a draft contract that was not signed, received a counter-contract that he did not sign either, and was asked to issue invoices randomly without any explanation or discussion about the timing and amount.  In addition, a long break of one year and nine months passed without any payment or contact, until in August 2016 he was suddenly again asked to forward an invoice without any explanation and without knowing how to point to concrete work he had performed.  The defense did not present any objective evidence that there was a dialogue that connected the work to the payment, or that could explain the payment and the reasons for it.
267. The minimum that was required was for Lieber to send Ganor a letter demanding payment, according to the evidence, there was no payment demand letter issued by Lieber to Ganor containing details of the actions performed, hours of work or similar data. On the contrary, the documents show that Lieber's way of contracting with Ganor was characterized by the absence of a regulated contract, without a payment definition, without detailed payment terms and without setting milestones.  None of the draft of the standard contract held by Lieber was addressed to Gunor concretely by way of institutionalizing their business relationship and did not contain any details regarding the scope of the payment or the nature of the work.  The "demand for payment" that appears in the evidence is Exhibit P/46, which constitutes an invoice from the "Ness-Mor" company (the company of Lieber's partner, Nati Mor) that was sent to Ronen Shemer on behalf of Ganor.  The email that accompanied this demand simply read: "Hi Ronen, please pass it on to Mickey.  Tzachi, " without any details of the hours of work or specific tasks that were performed.  Lieber himself confirmed in his interrogation that he did not talk to Ganor about money, did not know how to explain exactly what the payment was for and whether he was looking to the past or the future, and noted that "what Mickey would have paid me was all right."
268. In addition, the testimony of the witnesses who try to present the defendant's activity as the provision of a legitimate service is contradicted by the defendant's own version. The defendant admitted in his version that the ammonia project was for him only "slicks" (i.e., only coverage), and that most of Ganor's activity and appeals to him were in the area of contact with David Sharan and the transfer of requests relating to the vessels' transactions.  Until the end of the defendant's testimony, it was not clarified whether he had received money for that "operation" in connection with Sharan - a fact that undermines the professional opinions.
269. These witnesses, brought by the defense, deal for the most part with "second- or third-order disputes of importance, " which do not relate to the core of the criminal charge. Bushinsky and Rimon's general assertions that in this industry "everything is reasonable" - whether a large sum is paid for limited work or unpaid work as a practice of "send to your father" - cannot explain or legitimize the suspicious and unusual totality of financial and behavioral evidence in this case.
270. The presentation of the contract in the interrogation was done at the initiative of the defendant, Tzachi Lieber, who made sure to raise the issue again and again with the investigators [P/2A, page 3]. From the very first day of his interrogations with the police, when he was asked about working with Ganor, about the sums paid and about what was required to be done, Lieber referred the investigators to an agreement which, according to him, regulated all these details [P/2A, P/3A].  The prosecutor even verified this fact during the court hearing and noted to him: "You have been consistent in this since day one, referring the investigators to your contract, you say let's issue the contract, or what?" [Transcript of July 6, 2023, p.  814, line 18].
271. In addition, during his interrogation, it was Lieber himself who actively asked to receive his mobile phone in order to retrieve the document from his e-mail box and present it to the interrogators [P/2A, page 5, line 8]. The interrogators, who responded to his request, allowed him to locate the document, but the defendant himself was surprised to discover that it was a draft that was not signed and did not specify any amounts (P/2A, page 5, line 25).
272. I am unable to accept this explanation. At the time the agreement was sent, the parties did not know that the affair would be discovered, and therefore the degree of caution taken was insufficient for the purpose of closing all the extremes.  It is precisely a market that works verbally, as claimed, that should not have prepared an employment agreement at all; the fact that the defendant presented the contract to the investigators on his own initiative is an indication that the defendant believed that the employment contract constituted an "insurance certificate" that whitewashed the criminal act in the colors of legitimate work.  Therefore, when the defendant in his interrogation with the police on 05.09.17 and Ganor, at the stage when he served as a state witness, confirm that no work was done, and beyond that, not a single document prepared by Lieber for the purpose of his work for Ganor was presented - I find it to be determined that it is precisely Ganor's incriminating version that should be given the maximum weight as a reasonable version, which constitutes support for the defendant's confession.

Artifact Evidence

273. Moreover, during his interrogation with the police, Lieber claimed that he had actively reviewed the Hebrew ammonia tender, and had written "clauses and insights" about it as part of the work he had provided to Ganor. However, the police investigators accused him of being a lie and that there was no written document of such "insights", since the tender itself was never transferred to him [P/3B investigation dated 04.09.2017, pp.  103-104] - a fact that was further strengthened by the statement of Ronen Shemer, who confirmed that Ganor refused to transfer the ammonia tender to him (P/94).
274. The rest of the documents attesting to Lieber's work, such as summaries of meetings, records, or e-mail correspondence, were not written or edited by Lieber himself, but by other parties; These include Ronen Shemer's notebooks (P/47 and P/48) or e-mails sent by Shemer involving Lieber (P/30).
275. Another significant circumstantial evidence that undermines the work version is Ganor's "table of advisors", according to which the planning of the payments and the structure of the transfer of funds are precisely in accordance with the bribe plans and not the actual scope of work [P/36]. Thus, for example, Lieber did not receive any salary in 2015, but in August 2016 he received an exact payment of ILS 50, 000 (excluding VAT) that corresponds exactly to two years of planning in the tables, and this without any indication of real activity at that time, which is 2016.
276. Finally, Lieber's conduct after the affair exploded in the media in late 2016 contradicts the existence of an innocent professional relationship, since he approached Ganor under pressure and urgency and asked to meet with him secretly [P/68, P/66]. In these meetings, Lieber demanded from Shore that all communication with Sharan be carried out solely through him, and defined himself as the "media advisor" on this matter - an action that Neur interpreted in real time as an attempt to "turn the payments that were previously transferred to him into those that were paid as wages for media consulting" [P/71A, p.  212].  In view of the foregoing, I find it to be determined that the support of objective evidence, which is logically and reasonably interpreted in Ganor's testimony as a state witness, gives it maximum weight, and therefore it constitutes supporting evidence for the defendant's confession.
277. Finally, Ganor's original version as a state witness is backed up by many independent objective evidence seized in his documents and computers, which contradicts his retraction of the bribery interpretation. Among these pieces of evidence are the "Table of Advisors", one of Ronen Shemer's notebooks, the notebooks of Secretary Josie Singer, e-mails, computer outputs and media studies (P/82, P/47, P/49, P/33).  This evidence fully supports and crosses Ganor's original incriminating version of the police, and is inconsistent with his later explanations (P/27, P/59, P/58, P/61).
278. The same is true of Defendant Lieber's own detailed confession to the police, in which he admitted to transferring the funds (P/5, line 101). The full coordination between the defendant's confession and Ganor's original version to the police creates a "mirror image" that cannot be reconciled with the claims of changing the version after he retracted his position as Ganor's state witness (transcript of the hearing of 08/01/2023, page 31, line 12).

The Weight of Ganor's Testimony

279. Ganor's original testimony as a state witness in the police deserves maximum weight, since it was coherent, detailed, and backed by a variety of corroborations and significant external evidence, including the defendant's own confession. Ganor was the one who revealed the names of Sharan and the defendant as accomplices in the transfer of the bribe money on his own initiative, even at the stage of the negotiations and without any prior suspicion on the part of the investigators.  Had Ganor wanted to fabricate false libels, he could have incriminated Minister Steinitz (with whom he met and even gave him donations through straw men), but he was precise in his testimony and refrained from doing so.
280. Ganor's original version is fully supported by hard evidence that was seized, including the "table of advisors, " from Ronen Shemer's notebooks, secretary Josie Singer's diaries, emails, and media research. The entries in the "table of advisors" served as an authentic tool for monitoring Ganor's expenses, and the planning of the payments in them accurately corresponded to the bribery plans, rather than the actual scope of work.  For example, in August 2016, Lieber received an exact payment of ILS 50, 000 (excluding VAT), which corresponds exactly to two years of planning in the tables, without any indication of real activity at the time.
281. Defendant Tzachi Lieber's detailed confession to the police, in which the statement regarding the transfer of the funds creates a "mirror image" and full coordination with Ganor's original version. The defendant's legitimate work claim is contradicted by his own confession in his interrogation dated September 4, 2017, in which he admitted that regarding the ammonia project, "there was no work" and that the project was only used as a "slick" (cover only).  In addition, the defendant presented a developing version regarding the alleged employment contract, and in the end it was found that it was an unspecified draft that lacked details - a fact that reinforces the fact that the connection was fictitious.

David Sharan - Public Servant

282. The question of David Sharan's status as a "public servant" is examined in relation to three different terms of office: as Chief of Staff to the Minister of Finance (from 2009 to 2012), as Secretary of EAPC (between January 2013 and December 2014), and as Director of the Prime Minister's Office and Chief of Staff (from December 2014 to September 2016). While there is no dispute that during his actual tenure in the Prime Minister's Office he was considered a public servant, there are substantial factual and legal disputes regarding the rest of the periods and his status during them.
283. With regard to his position as Chief of Staff to the Minister of Finance, the defense recognizes that this is a position recognized in the Regulations for which the subject is a civil servant. However, the defense argues that the state did not prove and did not present any evidence as to the date of the beginning of his employment and the date of the actual termination of his employment in this position.  On the other hand, the accuser relies on the facts of the indictment according to which he served in this position and therefore was a public servant at the time.  Taking into account the dates indicated in the indictment, even if a bribe was given in relation to the period in which Ran was an employee of the Ministry of Finance, the date of commencement of employment is of no importance, taking into account the continuity of his employment, I find it to be determined that during the relevant period Sharan was a public servant in his position in the Ministry of Finance.
284. With regard to his position as secretary of EAPC, the accuser claims that Sharan was a public servant under section 20(b) of the Penal Law, since EAPC is a corporation that provides services to the public. On the other hand, the defense claims that EAPC was established as a private company and only as of March 25, 2020, began to be considered a government company, and therefore at the relevant times Ran was not a public servant.  In addition, the defense presents a letter according to which Sharan was approved for unpaid leave from EAPC in accordance with the board of directors' decision of November 26, 2014, which actually began on November 3, 2014.
285. Regarding the period preceding his official appointment to the Prime Minister's Office (beginning in September 2014), the accuser claims that Sharan was a "candidate" for a public servant under section 294(c) of the Penal Law. As evidence of this status, the accuser refers to media reports dated September 11-12, 2014 about his candidacy, a polygraph test, and a draft conflict of interest arrangement that began to take shape at the latest about two weeks before November 3, 2014.  On the other hand, the defense argues that the state did not present sufficient formal evidence establishing the status of a "candidate, " such as the questionnaire that Sharan filled out in order to take office.
286. Regarding Sharan's status as a civil servant, it was also argued that this issue was proven on the basis of the testimony of Adv. Shlomit Barnea-Farago, which was submitted with consent (P/100-P/103), which testifies to the process of Sharan's absorption into the position of Director of the Prime Minister's Office, along with other documents documenting this process (P/38-P/43), alongside the testimony of Ganor and the defendant's testimony that corroborate it.
287. As to the date of termination of his term in the Prime Minister's Office, a dispute arose as to whether he was a public servant on the date of the transfer of the second payment on August 11, 2016. Following a court order pursuant to section 108 of the Kindness Act, an official response was received from the Human Resources Division of the Prime Minister's Office, attesting that the date of termination of Sharan's employment in the civil service was September 26,   (Letter from the Director of Human Resources in the Prime Minister's Office, dated February 26, 2017) The accuser claims that this figure proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Sharan was a public servant at the relevant time, while the defense claims that he actually finished his work and was abroad even before August 11, 2016.
288. The case law states that the term "corporation that provides a service to the public" in section 290(b) of the Penal Law is interpreted in a broad and purposeful approach, based on the nature of the service, its vitality, the degree of the public's dependence on it, and the role that the corporation plays in the public apparatus, so that it also includes employees of private corporations that provide services to the public or to the state.
289. According to the precedent established by the Supreme Court, the term "corporation that provides a service to the public" must be interpreted in accordance with the purposes of the offense of bribery - the protection of integrity, the proper functioning of the administration, and the public's trust. In the era of privatization, many of the functions that were once the responsibility of the state are now performed by private corporations, and therefore an expansive approach is adopted that is not limited to rigid criteria, and includes employees of these corporations as "public servants" for the purpose of the offense of bribery.  See additional Criminal Hearing 10987/07 State of Israel v.  Barak Cohen, 66(1) 644 (March 2, 2009)
290. The interpretation of section 290(b) focuses on the nature of the service provided by the corporation and the degree of the public's dependence on it, and not on the formal status of the employee or the corporation. It is sufficient that the corporation provides a service that is also provided to the public (as opposed to the private sector only) in order to bring it within the scope of the section, and it is not necessary that this will be its sole or exclusive occupation.  See Criminal Appeal 766/07 Barak Cohen v.  State of Israel (November 19, 2007)
291. The rule clarifies that the definition of "public servant" in section 290(b) is an expansive and unique definition of the offense of bribery, and it is broader than the general definition found in section 3424 of the Penal Law. An employee of a corporation that provides a service to the public will be considered a public servant for the purpose of bribery, but not necessarily for other offenses that require this element (such as abuse of office power under section 280).  See Dafna Barak-Erez, Administrative Law (2010), Chapter 1: The Essence of Administrative Law - Purposes and Directions of Development
292. According to case law, EAPC is considered a "corporation that provides services to the public" due to the necessity of its services in the field of energy and fuel, and therefore the company's secretary is considered a "public servant" for the purpose of the bribery offense under section 290(b) of the Penal Law, by virtue of a purposive and substantive interpretation that expands the application of bribery laws to corporations that provide essential services to the public.
293. EAPC ("Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company Ltd.) is engaged in the production, production and flow of fuel in pipelines. This activity constitutes the provision of essential and central service to the general public and the national economy.  In the legal literature and case law, EAPC's status as a body that provides essential "public service" has been recognized.  Moran Savorai Collective Labor Law - Theory, Practice and Practice (2023) | Chapter 7: Labor Dispute Resolution: The Labor Dispute Resolution Law, 5717-1957
294. The case law applied the definition of "a corporation that provides a service to the public" to fuel and energy companies of a similar nature to EAPC (such as "Pi Glilot Ltd."), due to the great public benefit they produce and the service they provide to the public, even if indirectly. Hence, a government or private company engaged in this vital field falls within the scope of section 290(b).  See additional criminal hearing 10987/07 State of Israel v.  Barak Cohen, 66(1) 644 (02.03.2009)
295. Section 290(b) of the Penal Law establishes an expansive and special definition of the offense of bribery, according to which a "public servant" also includes an employee of a corporation that provides a service to the public. Since EAPC provides an essential service to the public, every employee in EAPC - and in particular a senior and central officer such as the company's secretary - is considered a "public servant" for the purpose of the offense of bribery, regardless of whether he is directly employed by the state.  Section 290(b) of the Penal Law, 5737-1977
296. The application of section 290(b) to the secretary of EAPC is consistent with the purpose of the bribery offense - the protection of integrity, the proper operation of the administration and the public's trust. The application of the bribery laws to the employees of these corporations is intended to prevent the abuse of power and influence in bodies that manage vital resources for the state and the public.  Yitzhak Zamir Administrative Authority (2010) | Chapter 21: Personal Responsibility
297. Case law and the legal literature interpret section 290(b) of the Penal Law in a purposeful and expansive manner. Since EAPC provides essential services to the public in the field of energy and fuel, it is considered a "corporation that provides service to the public".  As a result, the EAPC secretary is considered a "public servant" for the purpose of the offense of bribery, and he is subject to all the criminal prohibitions relating to taking bribes.
298. The defense's argument that the dates of the beginning and end of Sharan's position when he moved from one position to another were not proven is an argument that cannot be of any benefit to the defendant in view of the fact that the defendant moved from one position to another continuously and during the entire period of the indictment he was a public servant.
299. The defense was also based on the dynamics of the interrogation of state witness Ganor dated August 14, 2017, (to add P/71A, page 213, line 24), in which the police investigators themselves presented him with factual data according to which Sharan "left the Prime Minister's Office and returned to EAPC in August 2016." On the basis of this data provided by the investigators, Ganor built the narrative according to which Sharan was careful not to receive money while he was still in office and waited especially for the end of his term in August in order to receive the second payment through Lieber. This argument shows that Sharan's recognition of being a public servant and receiving the money constitutes a criminal offense.  Although this argument is of no use to the defendant, section 290 of the Penal Law does not require simultaneity.  The section states that "a public servant who takes a bribe for an action related to his position" The action can be carried out while the public servant was in his position and the date of receipt of the bribe could be later.  Even after the public servant left his position, provided that the bribe was in return for the action performed by the public servant in his public position.  In any event, I am not required to answer this question in the present case, because the date of the transfer of the money was when Ran was still a public servant.

Proving guilt

300. We have reached the final chapter of the verdict, after I have determined that there is no reason to disqualify the defendant's confession to the criminal acts. In addition, I found that decisive evidentiary weight should be given to Ganor's version as a state witness, as supporting evidence for the defendant's confession.  Finally, I found that Sharan served as a public servant on the relevant dates of the commission of the offenses, and now we are left with the last issue - the proof of the defendant's guilt in all the offenses attributed to him by the accuser.

The defendant's version in the police as it emerges from his statements

301. In the defendant's first interrogation on September 2, 2017, which began after his arrest at the airport at 9:40 P.M., the defendant first gave a general version that constituted a confession. He confirmed that David Sharan had made his acquaintance with Mickey Ganor on the subject of the "ammonia tender", and claimed that there was a signed contract between them detailing the terms of the payment.  However, at this stage, before consulting with his lawyer, the defendant categorically denied the existence of any transfer of funds between him and Sharan.  (P/1A)
302. After leaving for a 40-minute consultation with Adv. Daniel Cohen at 11:30 P.M., the defendant returned and gave a version that differed on a number of material points. He admitted that Ganor diverted the connection from the issue of ammonia to the transactions of vessels, and that he had received payments from Ganor (according to him, the first payment was ILS 20, 000 ).  The defendant admitted that he had transferred "a sum of several thousand" of the first payment to Sharan as an expression of gratitude for the connection he made for him with Ganor, thus directly linking the money to Sharan.  (P/1B)
303. On September 3, 2017, the defendant was briefly interrogated, after he met with a new lawyer, Adv. Yair Regev. In this interrogation, the defendant did not change his initial version, but added an example of a concrete case in which he mediated for Ganor.  He said that Ganor had asked to receive Sharan's assistance in the matter related to submarines, and in particular that he wished to join the Prime Minister's entourage on a trip to a shipyard in Germany ("the shipyard is called Latisen").  The defendant repeatedly described the issue of ammonia as only an "entrance door", which was quickly expanded by Ganor to the subject of the vessel.  (P/2A)
304. During the full interrogation of September 4, 2017, the defendant admitted to other aspects that implicate him in the offenses attributed to him. He admitted that in practice no work had been carried out regarding the ammonia, that Ganor had unilaterally determined all the terms of the contract and payments, and that he had transferred money to Sharan in cash from a variety of sources.  The defendant admitted that the funds were transferred on a number of different dates, and did not rule out the possibility that he had transferred to Sharan the full sum that he had received from Ganor.  (P/3B)
305. On September 5, 2017, at the stage prior to the delivery of his full confession, the defendant shared with his interrogators his feeling that things had gone over his head without him taking part in them. He noted that in his estimation, Sharan himself was involved in the submarine issue behind his back, and that the tape of the conversation between Sharan and Ganor and Sharan's text message ("What about this") (P/4A) helped him understand the situation and "position himself in the space." In addition, the defendant confirmed with a clear opinion that it was clear to him that he was not guaranteed any benefit for the cooperation, and noted to the interrogators that this fact was "very disappointing." (P/5A, page 5, line 14)
306. In his confessional version that he gave later that day (P/5A), the defendant admitted that Sharan did indeed make the acquaintance between him and Ganor, but "quite quickly Sharan explained to him that Ganor owed him money and that he wanted to transfer it to him through him." (P/5A, page 2, line 12) The defendant admitted that, contrary to his previous claims, the transfer of the money to Sharan did not stem from "gratitude" for the work he arranged for him. He confirmed to the interrogators the existence of these critical points, and admitted that he served as a conduit for the transfer of the funds and that in practice "he had no money left" but that he transferred "all the money" to Sharan.
307. The defendant admitted in his confessional version that he had received money from Mickey Ganor in order to transfer it to Uncle Sharan, and that he already knew from the time he arrived at the first meeting with Ganor that this was his intended position. According to him, the sequence of events began with Ganor owing money to Sharan, and Sharan asked that the money be transferred through the defendant.  (P/5, line 99)
308. The defendant functioned as a "kind of money pipe", with Ganor transferring money to him and he took care of redeeming it and transferring it to Sharan (ibid., issue 4, lines 102-103 and 110). The defendant received the money from Ganor in two stages: the first in 2014 and the second in 2016.  (P/5, line 104)
309. As to the dates of the transfer of the funds to Sharan, the defendant stated that the transfers were made after he began working for Ganor, and some of them may even after the affair exploded. (P/5, line 110 onwards) He clarified that he could not state with certainty the exact dates and amounts of these transfers to Sharan.
310. The defendant received the funds from Ganor by means of bank transfers to the companies "N.C.T. Communications" and "Ness Mor", redeemed them in cash with the assistance of his partner Nati Mor, and transferred them to Sharan.  (P/5A, page 16, line 39) The money was always delivered to Sharan in cash and in several installments (in his estimation, no more than 10 transfers, and perhaps seven), with the sources of cash including both withdrawals from his business accounts and cash withdrawals from his personal account.  (P/3, page 4, line 101)
311. With regard to the explanations given to him, Sharan made it clear to the defendant that these were funds that Ganor was required to transfer to him in the context of "vessels" transactions. (P/5A, page 4 and page 7) With regard to Ganor, the defendant assumed that he had refrained from paying Sharan directly in cash "in his great miserliness", but rather wished that the money be recognized as an expense and therefore demanded to receive an invoice.  (P/5A) The defendant agreed to make the transfers "in his stupidity", as he put it, out of a desire to help his close friend Sharan, who made the acquaintance between him and Ganor and promised him that Ganor could be trusted 100%.  (P/6A, page 55)
312. The defendant said that from a subjective point of view, he tried to believe that he had done some work for Ganor, but described it as false promises ("Like such Aladdin... he begins to spread stories around the world").  He explained that Ganor presented him with "shiny" deals and various promises in order to lure him into this situation.  Ultimately, the defendant confirmed to the interrogators that he understood that Ganor and Sharan had integrated him into this relationship for one clear purpose - to mediate and transfer the funds between them.  (P/5A)
313. On September 5, 2017, after a meeting with his lawyer in which it was explicitly made clear to him that he would not receive any benefit in return, the defendant chose to cooperate fully and gave a confessional version. In this version, the defendant fully admitted to the suspicions attributed to him regarding the bribery brokerage between Ganor and Sharan and the accompanying offenses, and completed the details of his role and actions.  During his interrogation, the defendant explained that he understood that the transfer of the money to Sharan and the connection of the matter to the intelligence information requested by Ganor were complicating Sharan, and that he had difficulty at first talking about it for this reason.  (P/3A)
314. In his interrogation on September 6, 2017, the defendant testified that only close to the interrogation, in July or August 2017, did he transfer an additional sum of ILS 10, 000 to Sharan . (P/6A, page 35, line 13) Despite his full confession regarding the Ganor-Sharan axis, throughout his interrogations and until his release, the defendant maintained his right to remain silent regarding other people involved, such as Gary Hakim and Hagar Sharan.  Even after he was released from detention, and in his last interrogation on September 18, 2017, the defendant continued to maintain his right to remain silent on these matters, but did not retract his incriminating confession regarding the bribery brokerage to Sharan.  (P/8A)

The defendant's version in court

315. In his main and cross-examination in court, the defendant completely denied the charge of bribery.  He claimed that the money he received from Ganor was paid to him for truthful work and legitimate services that he performed for him (transcript of June 11, 2023).
316. The defendant detailed that the relationship with Ganor began around the ammonia tender and developed into various projects, and that the payments were received by the companies "N.C.T" and "Ness Mor" according to a professional decision by his partner, Nati Mor (transcript, p. 658, lines 28-32).  He also vehemently denied that he acted as a conduit for the transfer of information or bribe money between the two (transcript of June 11, 2023; transcript, pp.  659-660).
317. As for the transfer of the money to Sharan, the defendant denied that he had transferred Ganor's money to him and claimed: "I gave him of my money as a token of gratitude for arranging Mickey for me as a customer" (transcript of July 6, 2023, p. 806, line 5).  Since Sharan "connected" Ganor to the defendant, and the defendant was privileged to receive work from Ganor and saw him as a client with significant income potential, he decided to thank Sharan and transferred thousands of shekels to him on one occasion.  This is regardless of the money transferred from Ganor to the defendant, which he presented as a legitimate salary for his services as an advisor to Ganor.  The defendant testified in court about his acquaintance with Ganor:

"Q.  Tell the court about your acquaintance with Miki Ganor, under what circumstances did you meet and when?

2014. That was in June 2014. The person who knew me and Mickey Ganor was David Sharan.
2015. How did this happen in practice?
2016. He told me at some point that he knew a successful businessman, that he was Thyssenkrupp's representative in Israel. Then he told me that he intended to compete in the ammonia tender, and that he was looking for someone to advise him in this field.  And he thought of me, David, in this context.  And then we set up a meeting on 6/14 with Mickey in the offices" (P., at p.  654, paras.  7-12).
2017. He described this as an exceptional and one-time event of the delivery of only "a few thousand shekels" (Transcript, p. 823, line 22).  He emphasized that Ganor's money had not been transferred to Sharan, and that it was two different circles with no financial connection between them.
2018. As for the dates on which the funds were received from Ganor, these were payments from November 2014 and August 2016, but the defendant denied any connection between them and Sharan. He gave his personal money to Sharan on only one occasion in 2014 ("I gave him yes in 2014, " transcript of July 9, 2023, p.  682, line 6).  The defendant claimed that Sharan never asked him to transfer information or money, and that Ganor did not give him explanations regarding the transfer of funds because such a transfer was not planned in the first place (transcript of June 11, 2023, p.  659, line 31).
2019. The defendant agreed to give Sharan the small sum of money only as a disclosure of friendship and "gratitude" for introducing him to a wealthy client who hoped to make profits from him in the future (transcript of June 11, 2023, p. 660, line 19).  During his interrogation with the police, he found it difficult to explain why he chose to express gratitude with money rather than a gift, and said simply: "Because that's how I felt it was true" (transcript of September 4, 2017, p.  58, line 32).  In cross-examination, he concluded that his previous confessions to the police, in which he linked himself to a bribery broker, were false, and were given only because of the pressure and fear exerted on him during the arrest (Protocol, p.  888, line 18).

The Defendant's Version of the Defense's Approach

321. According to the defense, in his interrogation on September 2, 2017, the defendant gave a true version. It was argued that the defendant immediately provided the following details at the beginning of the interrogation, even before any evidence was thrown at him, and this substantiates the claim that this was a true confession.
322. It was claimed that the defendant stated that he knew Ganor through Sharan, because Ganor needed his services (P/1A, p. 11, s.  15 ff.), against the background of the ammonia tender.  Since Ganor and the Thyssenkrupp Corporation wanted to enter into the tender, Ganor asked him to assist him in regulatory matters on the subject (P/1A, p.  11, s.  11 onwards).  The defendant noted that no intensive work was carried out in this tender (P/1A, p.  13, paras.  15-16), and when asked what he actually did for Ganor, he replied that he had many work meetings with him, and that it was his job - to meet with people (P/1A, p.  13, paras.  20-27).  The defendant added that he was paid several tens of thousands of shekels for his services (P/1A, p.  19, paras.  26-27).
323. According to the defense, after consulting with his lawyer, the defendant reiterated the main points of his version that Sharan made the acquaintance between him and Ganor while Sharan was working at EAPC, and that he began working with Ganor on the ammonia issue. The defendant then added that Ganor gradually tried to direct him to other matters, and even used to pay him money for things he might "need from him."
324. According to the defense, at this stage of the investigation, the defendant underwent a logical process in which he believed that he had fallen victim to a problematic relationship between Sharan and Ganor, a relationship of which he was not even aware of according to the defense. The defense claims that at this stage, the defendant presented the investigators with a possibility that had not yet been ruled out, according to which Ganor held him as a strategic advisor and derived favors from Sharan from it, without the defendant's knowledge.  The defendant described that he asked Sharan questions about the vessel from time to time, but saw them only as gossip questions and salon conversations (defense summaries, p.  119), when in most cases David used to "wave" him.
325. According to the defendant's version, he gave Sharan a sum of money as a token of gratitude for introducing him to Ganor, while Sharan was not serving as a civil servant, on one occasion and in the sum of only a few thousand shekels. It was claimed that the defendant explained in his testimony in court why he had difficulty in detailing the payment of the consideration to David in exchange for his acquaintance with Ganor, and that his explanations were not contradicted (transcript at p.  662, paras.  3-9).
326. Therefore, the defense is of the opinion that the defendant's version of truth should be accepted, as he admitted in his interrogation on September 2, 2017: Sharan made the acquaintance between the defendant and Ganor, and the defendant provided Sharan with media and strategic consulting services, first regarding the ammonia tender. At a certain point, the services he provided to Ganor expanded, and then the defendant was asked by Ganor to ask Sharan various questions, with Sharan evading them in most cases.
327. The defendant received payment from Ganor for the services he provided him, and paid Sharan a sum of several thousand shekels as a token of gratitude for the connection between him and Ganor. This was even before Sharan took up his position in the Prime Minister's Office, and long before Ganor asked the defendant to ask Sharan questions.

The Defendant's Version of the Accuser's Approach

328. According to the prosecution, the defendant brokered bribe payments that Ganor transferred to Sharan in exchange for actions related to Sharan's public positions.  It was claimed that the payments were allegedly paid to the defendant for consulting services that Ganor and T.G.  received from the defendant, but in practice they did not receive any service from him that justified these payments, and the defendant transferred the lion's share of the payments to Sharan.  In addition, according to the prosecution, the defendant served as an entity for transferring information and requests between Ganor and Sharan, in order to disguise the corrupt relationship between them.
329. In order to prove the defendant's guilt of the offenses that are the subject of the indictment, the prosecution sought to base itself on two main evidentiary foundations: one - the defendant's confession to the police; and the second - Ganor's detailed statements to the police as a state witness, which led to the investigation of the suspicions against the defendant from the outset.  With respect to these two foundations, it was argued that each of them in and of itself is capable of establishing the defendant's conviction and leading to the rejection of the defense's arguments, and in any event, they are joined by additional supporting evidence.

Analysis of the Defendant's Version

330. I find it necessary to reject the defense's argument that the version of September 2, 2017 is the version of truth, for the reasons that will be detailed below. The defendant's version in the police and in court is a developing version that has undergone several substantial stages, from denial, through partial confession, to full confession, and then - to retract it within the walls of court.  At the beginning of his interrogation on September 2, 2017, the defendant denied any transfer of money to Sharan, but after consulting with Attorney Daniel Cohen at 11:30 P.M., he returned to the interrogation room and began to give a confession in which he admitted that Sharan had introduced him to Ganor (P/1B, p.  46).
331. Subsequently, on September 3, 2017, the defendant claimed that he had transferred to Sharan a lump sum of several thousand shekels as a "gratitude" for the work he had arranged for him. However, the next day, September 4, 2017, following an interrogation exercise in which he was told that Sharan testified that he had received money from him several times, the defendant changed his version and admitted that he had transferred cash to Sharan on a number of occasions (P/3A, p.  13, lines 4-8; p.  18, lines 5-7).
332. In the same interrogation on September 4, 2017, the defendant even admitted that he did not know whether he had any money left in his possession or whether he had transferred to Sharan the entire sum he received from Ganor (P/3A, p. 153, lines 18-21).  Finally, on September 5, 2017, the version developed into a full and detailed confession, in which the defendant admitted that he had served as a conduit for transferring the bribe money from Ganor to Sharan in accordance with Sharan's demand and on the dates chosen by Sharan.  Later in the interrogation, after he was not released as he had expected, he began to maintain his right to remain silent.
333. In court, the version completely changed its face, with the defendant denying his full confession and claiming that only the initial version he gave on the night of his arrest after the consultation was the version of truth (Transcript, June 11, 2023).  He claimed that all the other parts of his version confessing to the police were fabrications and lies, intended solely to please his interrogators and bring about his release from detention.
334. The defendant explained that the change in his versions stemmed from the fact that he was under immense mental stress and in a state of obscurity ("blackout") on the first night of the interrogation (transcript, June 11, 2023, p. 661, line 7).  According to him, the interrogators made it clear to him that his original and true version was "sucked out of the finger" and that he would remain in custody, so he acted irrationally and began to "move towards them" and give "slices" of lies that would fit the narrative the interrogators wanted to hear (Transcript, July 6, 2023, p.  816, line 34; Transcript, July 9, 2023, p.  851, line 11 onwards).
335. According to all the evidence, there are a number of main reasons that lead to the rejection of the defendant's late and changing version, and to the preference for his version confessed to the police. First, the defendant's decision to confess on September 5, 2017, was a well-considered and measured decision, accompanied by close legal advice from his defense attorney, Adv. Yair Regev, and not under improper external pressure.  Prior to the presentation of the version, it was explicitly made clear to the defendant, in the presence of his defense attorney, that he was not assured of anything, that the cooperation was done of his own free will and that there was no promise to release him from detention, and he confirmed that he understood this well.
336. Second, the difficulty in the defendant's later version was exposed through his selective real-time distinction between the various people involved in the investigation. Despite the alleged pressure, the defendant maintained "red lines" and did not agree to involve other people involved who, according to him, were unrelated to the matter, such as Yuval Steinitz, Gary Hakim or Hagar Sharan.  These persons involved were in contact with the defendant but remained out of the picture of the criminal act.  This conduct proves that he controlled his version and chose to confess only details that corresponded to reality and the evidence regarding David Sharan.
337. Third, the defendant did not retract his confession at any stage of the investigation in real time, including when he was released to house arrest, during his later interrogation on September 18, 2017, and not even at the hearing stage. The claim that this was a false confession was first made only at the beginning of the trial, which indicates that it was a suppressed and tactical version intended to evade criminal responsibility after all the evidence had been analyzed and his line of defense had been built.
338. Fourthly, after viewing the documentation of the defendant's interrogations, I find it necessary to note that I am under the impression that the real reason (which he himself discussed) for his confession regarding Sharan and Ganor was the deep sense of hurt he felt from them. According to him, as he saw the way things were, his conduct over the years was intended solely to help his friends, which ultimately led to the opening of a criminal investigation against him.  In fact, it was the two who caused him this heavy damage.
339. In his interrogation on September 5, 2017, the defendant explained that he had decided to cooperate and tell the truth because he understood that he had served as "a kind of pawn in the game", and that he had moved all the way between the desire to protect his friend and the duty to tell the truth. He added that since the friend was the one who made the acquaintance between him and Ganor and asked him to carry out the aforementioned actions, he understood that it would not be right on his part to continue to bear the burden of protecting him when the friend himself led to this difficult situation.  This explanation appears in the transcript of P/5A, at pp.  38-39, beginning with line 4, as well as in the exhibit dated June 14, 2026, lines 220-226.

P/5A, p.  5, starting with line 13: