news
Opinions and interpretations
True to tradition, Mandelblit left the NIS 16 million question unanswered
The ombudsman closed the share portfolio without answering why Netanyahu received a benefit from his cousin, which they defined as a "family tradition."
Like his predecessor in the position that closed the case against Lieberman, the ombudsman refrained from expressing a position
Tags
Benjamin Netanyahu
stock
The submarine affair
ThyssenKrupp
The Speaker
Avichai Mandelblit
Prime Minister
Daniel Dolev
Friday, October 16, 2020, 9:45 p.m.
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments
France: A teacher was beheaded in a suburb of Paris on 16.10.20
In the video - approval of the peace agreement between Israel and the Union ...
Netanyahu in the Knesset: If the number of patients increases, we will tighten the closure ...
The pharmaceutical giant has suspended the corona vaccine trial ...
US imposes sanctions on bodies in Iran involved ...
Nigeria: Despite the reform, masses went out to demonstrate against ...
Puma chases after a hiker
Netanyahu at the door of the Corona cabinet: The closure is a huge success, ...
The police arrested a young woman in Tel Aviv who was not wearing a mask and refused ...
Pizza toast
In the video: Netanyahu criticizes the ombudsman for handling threats against him and his wife (Photo: Roni Knafo)
Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit's decision yesterday (Thursday) not to open an investigation into the stock affair spans 12 pages.
It is detailed and reasoned, but in the end, it does not answer one question: why did Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his cousin, Natan Milikovsky, receive a benefit worth more than ten million shekels, disguised as a share transaction.
From a criminal point of view, the decision is definitely on its feet, and will certainly easily face a petition to the High Court. From a public point of view - it is simply not enough.
The factual background interpreted in the document confirms what has been revealed in a number of newspaper publications In August 2007, Netanyahu bought shares in a holding company that owned two companies that made steel additives from his cousin, Natan Milikovsky, and paid them about NIS 2.5 million, and three years later sold them back to the Milikovsky family for NIS 16 million.
More on Walla!
NEWS
Blue and white: Examining the possibility of setting up an investigation committee for the submarine affair
Former senior Defense Ministry official: "Shimron used Netanyahu's name in the submarine deal"
Submarine affair: The state is trying to prevent the publication of affidavits by senior members of the defense establishment
Due to the growing demand for effective treatment of pain, without side effects: B-Cure laser in a special operation
The question of why he received a benefit from his cousin remained unanswered.
Netanyahu (Photo: Knesset Spokeswoman - Gideon Sharon)
The gaps between buying and selling embody a profit of more than 600%, in a period when the value of the company, according to other transactions, actually decreased.
Mandelblit assumed that this was indeed a significant benefit given by Milikowski to his cousin Netanyahu, but believed that the sale of the shares in 2010 reflected the real value of the company.
This means that the benefit was given back in 2007, when Milikowski sold the shares to his cousin at a big discount.
This is a critical point.
The first possibility was that it was a bribe, but the investigation found no interest in Milikowski in Israel that Netanyahu could have promoted in 2007, as a Member of Knesset and Speaker of the Opposition. As you may recall, the investigation placed the receipt of the benefit in 2007. Thus, the possibility of investigating the case on suspicion of bribery fell off the table.
More on Walla!
NEWS
The ombudsman ruled that Netanyahu received benefits in the share affair - but closed the case
To the full article
Mandelblit points out that the very receipt of a significant benefit by a public figure may constitute an offense of fraud and breach of trust.
But this offense is a slightly more biased offense, and the statute of limitations for the garden has passed even before the affair exploded and the investigation opened.
Thus also fell the possibility of interrogation for this offense.
This indirect connection was not enough
The latter angle was weaker in the first place, and it was argued that there was a connection between the stock affair and the submarine affair.
The reason: the steel additives company, whose shares were transferred from hand to hand between Netanyahu and his cousin, was a supplier of ThyssenKrupp - the manufacturer of the submarines and vessels.
The same company, Graftech, produced one steel component that is not only used for vessels, so it is not clear how much the steel company could have benefited from the submarine and vessel transactions.
This indirect connection was not enough.
Moreover, it is not at all clear whether Netanyahu was aware of it, and when Milikowski was questioned on the issue in the submarine affair, he replied that Netanyahu generally knew that he was dealing in the field of steel.
And so the main question remained unanswered: why did Netanyahu receive a benefit worth more than ten million shekels from his cousin.
Too late, but also too little.
Mandelblit (Photo: Olivier Fitoussi, Flash 90)
The explanation provided by Netanyahu and Milikowski is that this is a "tradition" that continued the practice of Milikowski's father giving Netanyahu's father money.
Why then did the cousin from America support only Netanyahu and not his brother?
He said, "He wanted to make it easier for Netanyahu and 'release' him from financial worries while he plays an important public role."
If so, why was the benefit disguised as a stock transaction?
The public probably never knew.
Weinstein's decision meets all the requirements at the criminal level.
But at the public level, the fact that Netanyahu received a benefit that may well be an offense of fraud and breach of trust, but managed to hover under the radar of the enforcement system until the end of the statute of limitations - is an answer that is difficult to come to terms with.
Mandelblit followed in his footsteps.
Weinstein (Photo: Noam Moskowitz)
In the past, there were ombudsmen who acted differently. When Eliakim Rubinstein decided to close the "trucking affair" without filing an indictment against Netanyahu, he accompanied it with harsh criticism of his conduct, and clarified that Rubinstein chose to do the same when he was forced to close the "Bar-On Hebron" affair, so he stated in the concluding report that "elements who are partly involved in crime have sought the appointment of the Attorney General."
Mandelblit did not follow in Rubinstein's footsteps, but rather in the footsteps of another legal adviser.
The document he published yesterday was more reminiscent of the decision of his predecessor in office, Yehuda Weinstein, to close Avigdor Lieberman's straw companies portfolio.
Weinstein also refrained from expressing a position.
He detailed the main points of the decision and added: "The public will call and judge."
Mandelblit left a similar hint in the document, writing that he dealt with "the criminal question, as opposed to questions of proper administration or questions from the field of public ethics."
But when the ombudsman does not find it appropriate to say a single word about the possibility that Netanyahu has committed an offense of fraud and breach of trust, and will not pass judgment on it due to statute of limitations - it is certainly too late, but also too little.
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments
