The Israeli police approached a non-Israeli company with a request to freeze a digital wallet that was allegedly suspected of fraud and money laundering activities.
The Supreme Court rejected the petition of the wallet owner and held that the police did have the authority to approach the foreign company and act to freeze the wallet. A police action that includes an element of coercion or a derogation of a specific right of the individual, requires explicit and specific statutory authorization. However, the Police is authorized to initiate and maintain voluntary cooperation with foreign institutions for the purpose of freezing and seizing assets suspected of being tainted by criminal activity. This authority does not require explicit and specific legal authorization; rather, it derives its power from the general mandate of the police to prevent and detect offenses. In this case, the police's approach to the foreign company did not involve the exercise of unilateral legal power, threats of regulatory sanctions, or coercion. The foreign company acted of its own free will and independent discretion. Furthermore, being a foreign entity that is not subject to Israeli law, the police also lacked any enforcement capability to compel the company to cooperate, and this does not constitute a covert coercive procedure. Therefore, there is no defect in the actions of the police or the foreign company, which acceded to the request based on its own various interests, and there are no grounds to overturn the freeze on the wallet.