Tzachi Lieber was interrogated: I don't know (the interrogee [00:16:10.561] shakes his head in the negative).
Investigator No. 3: Before we continue, I just spoke with the lawyer... I'm just making it clear to you that I've also made it clear to the lawyer... that there's no [00:16:19.522] benefit here or anything that we're promiseing. You want to talk, you want to tell the truth, you're telling the truth. We didn't promise any benefit. Oh... which is on the table, meaning there's no benefit that you're going to get.
Tzachi Lieber was interrogated: Let you know that this is very disappointing.
(Transcriptionist's note: Interrogator No. 4 enters the interrogation room.)
Tzachi Lieber was interrogated: It's not right. It's very disappointing, we've summed up the... (The speakers [00:16:35.704] are talking together at the same time, unclear words).
Investigator No. 3: It's okay for things to come that you know... That's what ... (The speakers [00:16:14.963] are talking together at the same time, unclear words) in the opinion that...
Tzachi Lieber was interrogated: With a clear mind.
Investigator No. 3: I understand you're not, you're not supposed to get any benefit from this story. We treat you like any interrogee in...
Tzachi Lieber was interrogated: I (the speakers speak together at the same time, unclear words).
- All of the aforementioned circumstances lead me to the conclusion that the defendant's confession was authentic, that his words were truthful, and that these corresponded to the mental state in which he was in when he saw his personal best interests before his eyes.
- I cannot help but refer to the "gaps conversation" - a conversation that took place on September 5, 2017 in the framework of interrogation No. 2726 (also documented in P/5A), between the interrogators Uri Kanner and Shlomi Farjon and the defendant. In this conversation, the parties discussed the gaps between the defendant's version and the interrogation thesis, against the background of a sheet of sketches written by the defendant that disappeared from the interrogation materials. The disappearance of the sketch sheet does indeed constitute a police malfunction, but I do not believe that the gaps conversation is capable of changing the evidentiary situation in the case. During this conversation, the interrogators presented Lieber with the main points of contention, including the claim that the money he transferred to Sharan was not "gratitude" but bribe money, and that all the money was transferred to Sharan and that he had nothing left in his hands.
- The defense claims that Lieber received from the interrogators a "grocery list" of details that he would have to confirm in order to be released from detention, which in its view seriously undermines the authenticity, weight, and reliability of his later confession. As a result, the defense believes that his confession cannot be viewed as an independent or authentic version, since it is nothing more than a reflection of the pattern of the version dictated to him in this conversation ("dressing the flesh on the skeleton").
- I cannot accept this argument; the defendant does not provide any qualified details in his confession, and on the contrary - the version remains vague and is inconsistent with the interrogators' report. To this day, it is not possible to know the exact dates of the transfer of the funds and the exact amounts transferred. The method of investigation is also not suitable for the format of a dictated investigation. Had it been a dictation, it would have been expected that the investigation would be short, focused and directly detailed the offense of bribery.
- A view of the interrogation documentation shows that this was a long, protracted and unfocused interrogation, in which the defendant did not even remember to mention the dates and amounts of the money transferred. Moreover, during the interrogation, the defendant was explicitly told that his confession did not bring about a change in the state of his detention, which also indicates that the defendant fully understood the suspicions against him even earlier.
- His confession was given freely, voluntarily and while providing incriminating details without receiving any benefit. If there had indeed been a gap conversation that dictated the content of his version to him in exchange for something, it would have been expected that the defendant would give a well-dictated and false version that guaranteed him immediate benefit. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find it necessary to reject the defense's argument that the gap conversation constitutes evidence that the defendant was dictated to his version.
- The version of the confession in the interrogation, which justifies the rejection of the later versions, is supported by the defendant's own version in court. The defendant's conduct, to say the least, is particularly puzzling, and in fact he did not have any answer regarding his business conduct. The defense, in the framework of the defendant's version, did not address this conduct, thus leaving his business conduct devoid of any logical and reasonable explanation - which is unacceptable.
- The evidence paints a puzzling picture that lacks minimal business logic, according to which the defendant did not discuss money with Ganor at all, sent him a draft contract that was not signed, and received an unsigned contract from him, in which the requested amount and the pace of payments were deleted. One day, without any prior request or detailed payment demand on the part of the defendant, Ganor approached him and asked him to forward an invoice, without any explanation as to the timing or the amount, and even after the payment had been made, there was no clear conversation between them on the matter. This conduct, in which Ganor decides on his own to pay the defendant sums of money without any binding contractual basis or wage demand on the part of the service provider, stands in complete contradiction to any accepted commercial practice.
- The court addressed this issue and wondered to the defendant how it was possible that an "immortal sum" and "out of the blue" had landed in his account, without ever discussing money before or after the incident. The defendant himself did not know how to explain in his interrogation and in court how the dates and amount of the payments were determined. The defendant admitted in his interrogation that the person who determined the amount to be paid was Ganor himself, and confirmed that he did not, and did not have, any other customer with whom he behaved in a similar manner of equanimity towards these accidental payments.
- This difficulty intensifies in view of the empty and sloppy contract that was exchanged between the parties, which constitutes a contract for appearance only, in whose pricing clause the price and pace of payments have been erased and only question marks remain. In this regard, see the minutes of July 6, 2023, p. 721:
The Honorable Judge Sagi: You get an amount that you don't know what it is about. You don't know if it's looking to the past, if it's looking to the future, if it's part of a series of payments.