Discussions in the Knesset Committee on the granting of immunity to MK Haim Katz were much concerned with whether the conflict of interest was a criminal offense or not. In the area of ​​conflict, a fine line separates criminal and non-criminal behavior. Some behavior may be considered an aesthetic, disciplinary or disciplinary offense. Ethical and at the edge - even for behavior that leads to a criminal offense of breach of trust.

The war on corruption is unbelievably important and the enforcement authorities should be allowed to work diligently to stimulate. But is any action in conflict with Knesset members worthy of dichotomous scrutiny between criminal and non-criminal? This limited vision leads to a result that prevents public denunciation of cases of misconduct that have not matured into criminal proceedings. Equally important, it can produce a chilling effect on the work of elected officials and discourage those who deserve to perform their duties.

The lack of rules, which are sensitive to the conduct, and tools to enforce them, can result in conduct in conflict of interest with a low degree of severity, ending without imposing a sanction on the elected official, since it is determined that the act performed does not exceed the threshold required for a criminal charge. Alternatively, the current situation may result in excessive use of criminal tools against elected officials who have been in conflict, even though the case is not worthy of criminal prosecution. For this reason, the time has come to adopt similar conclusions to those reached by the Shamgar Committee and the Trustee Committee, and to apply strict disciplinary and ethical rules to members of the Knesset and the government, which will be enforced through an ethics committee that operates according to legal standards and politically detrimental. It should also be stated that the Ethics Committee can take disciplinary and financial sanctions in the required cases.

Similar mechanisms are applied to other elected officials and civil servants. Heads of authorities are subject to a mechanism that provides an alternative to criminal charges in the form of a personal charge (a quasi-judicial committee that may impose a financial sanction), which balances the need to deter and the harms of over-deterrence. Public servants are subject to disciplinary action in this regard. In cases where an action has been taken in contravention of the law or procedures, and when the offense does not exceed a criminal threshold, it may be determined that a particular act constitutes a disciplinary offense, which will become clear to a court of law. The Securities and Exchange Commission also adopted the move from criminal enforcement to administrative enforcement tools in the appropriate cases. A Justice Department team (the think-tank reworking team) determined that the conflict of interest rules applied to public servants and members of government should be similar, with "careful application of the rule regarding members of the government, in accordance with their duties and powers, and in particular in cases". Where they seek to limit their powers. "

Indictment and Discussion of MK Katz's Immunity Request It could have been avoided if there had been disciplinary and ethical rules in relation to Knesset members and the government, which would have dealt with disproportionate rule violations as an alternative to the criminal procedure used without choice. Such a mechanism would ensure a balance between the obligation to apply The elected officials must act honestly and avoid conflicts of interest, and their need to carry out their parliamentary work, without the fear that any action that goes beyond the norm will expose them to criminal proceedings.

Attorney Michal Rosenbaum specializes in public law and conflict of interest issues