Netanyahu trials: Bribery charge to remain despite ‘complexity’ – prosecution

The prosecution in the corruption trial against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to continue with the bribery charge in what is known as Case 4000, despite the judges’ warning on Thursday that it would be difficult to prove, Channel 13 reported on Friday.

According to the report, attorney-general Gali Baharav-Miara, who has the final say on the prosecution’s decisions, said that “no circumstance had changed,” and that the prosecution would continue with the case and continue to refuse to engage in criminal arbitration.

The report came after Glickman and fellow Channel 13 reporter Baruch Kra reported on Thursday that the three Jerusalem District Court judges had said in a closed-door meeting with lawyers for both sides that there was a “difficulty and complexity” to prove the bribery charge in Case 4000. In addition, the judges reportedly said that “the good of the country requires a plea bargain.”

Netanyahu’s criminal trials: Where we stand

In Case 4000, Netanyahu stands accused of fraud, breach of trust, and bribery for allegedly promising regulation changes to benefit Bezeq owner Shaul Elovitch in return for positive coverage on the latter’s former website, Walla. The prime minister is also standing trial for two other counts of fraud and breach of trust, known as Case 1000 and Case 2000.

Case 2000 alleges that Netanyahu sought to weaken the newspaper Yisrael Hayom with legislation in return for positive coverage from publisher Arnon Mozes’s Yediot Aharonot. 

In Case 1000, Netanyahu is alleged to have received expensive gifts in return for his aid in the business interests of businessman Arnon Milchan. 

Neither the courts nor the prosecution responded to the reports by Channel 13, and it is unclear where the leak from the closed-door meeting came from.

Defense lawyers Boaz Ben-Tzur and Jacque Hen said in a statement on Saturday that they were not the source of the leak, and accused whoever was responsible for it for revealing only a part of what was said.

According to Ben-Tzur and Hen, the judges not only spoke about the difficulty of proving bribery, but also encouraged the prosecution to drop the bribery charge altogether.

According to the two lawyers, the closed-door meeting, which garnered some public criticism over the weekend for its lack of transparency, was an “accepted practice” and was held “in conditions that justified it.”

“Although the leak, which did not come from the ranks of the defense, did include correct details, it also included incorrect details, and other important details were left out,” they said.

In addition to the encouragement to drop the bribery charge, the two lawyers charged that the “good of the country” quote was inaccurate, and was an intentional attempt to “lower the value of the judges’ turn to the prosecution.”

“It is expected that the prosecutors listen and learn the court’s remarks with the necessary seriousness. Such always, but especially taking into account the case’s unique circumstances and the advanced stage of the prosecution’s witness examinations,” the lawyers said.

Ben-Tzur and Hen added that the prosecution’s “hurried” statement that it was still confident of a bribery conviction was because it claimed that the court “had yet to see the full picture” which would be revealed during cross-examination of the defense’s witnesses – chiefly among them, the prime minister himself.

“This is an absurd position,” the two lawyers said. “It is known to all that the place to prove claims in an indictment is during the prosecution’s witness examination. The claim to wait for the defense’s witness examination speaks to the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence.”

“Especially due to the sensitivity of the issue, it is required that the sides maintain restraint and be attentive to the court’s words, and then seriously weigh their next steps,” Ben-Tzur and Hen concluded.

Case 4000 report creates stir among Israel’s coalition

The initial report on Thursday about the content of the closed-door meeting created a stir among politicians from the coalition, many of whom in the past have repeated claims by Netanyahu that the trial was politically motivated.

“After years of media and legal persecution against the prime minister, a persecution that has turned an entire country, today the judges also say clearly that there is no chance of a conviction for bribery,” said Education Minister Yoav Kisch.

Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli said that the country had endured seven years of elections, protests and political chaos for a flawed investigation into Netanyahu. Chikli said that the truth was revealed and that there was no bribery or cheating by Netanyahu.

Likud MK Boaz Bismuth decried the millions of shekels wasted in the investigation and trial, and Environment Protection Minister Idit Silman demanded to know who would compensate the state of Israel for the elections and political turmoil. 

“Who will compensate the Netanyahu family for years of unbearable persecution?” asked Silman. 

Otzma Yehudit MK Almog Cohen called the attorney-general’s Office to open an investigation into former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit and former state attorney Shai Nitzan for opening the cases against Netanyahu.

Gideon Sa’ar: Netanyahu plea deal is ‘for the good of the country’

National Unity MK and former justice minister Gideon Sa’ar agreed with the alleged position of the court that the prosecution should seek a plea bargain for the “good of the country.”

“During my tenure as justice minister, I avoided referring to the possibility of a plea agreement in the Netanyahu trial,” Sa’ar wrote on Twitter. “This is out of respect for the independence of the State Attorney’s Office in matters dedicated to its professional discretion. My position has long been that it is right, considering all the factors, to end Netanyahu’s trial with a plea agreement. Now it is appropriate for the prosecution to listen to the court’s messages and show readiness for such a negotiation. The public interest in the broadest sense is to end this long-standing saga with a plea agreement,” Sa’ar wrote.

במשך תקופת כהונתי כשר המשפטים נמנעתי מהתייחסות לאפשרות הסדר טיעון במשפט נתניהו. זאת, מתוך כבוד לעצמאות התביעה הכללית בנושאים המסורים לשיקול דעתה המקצועי. עמדתי היתה זה מכבר כי נכון, בהתחשב במכלול השיקולים, לסיים את משפט נתניהו בהסדר טיעון. עתה מן הראוי שהתביעה תטה אוזן למסרים של…

— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) June 22, 2023

The turn of events in Case 4000 came just days after three of Netanyahu’s advisers were announced to be indicted, subject to a hearing, for the intimidation of Shlomo Filber, a former director-general of the communications ministry and state witness in Case 4000.

It also came days before the beginning of key witness Arnon Milchan’s testimony, which begins Sunday. Milchan is set to give a remote testimony from a courthouse in Brighton, UK.

JPost