In response to the amended indictment in the 4000 case, Elovich claims: "The intervention matched my positions, there was an attempt to balance the political and negative line against Netanyahu in Walla"
Shaul Alovich in the District Court
Photography:
Oren Ben Hakon
The couple Shaul and Iris Elowitz, who are accused in the 4000 case, submitted this morning (Monday) his answer to the amended indictment in the 4000 case, in which the state claims that he was given a bribe to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in exchange for benefits to Bezeq.
Elovich claims, through his lawyers, that this was not a bribe, because the direction of the intervention in the content matched his positions, and that it was an attempt to "balance the political line of the site and the negative line against Netanyahu."
The amended indictment states that between the defendants Netanyahu and the Elowitz couple there was a "give-and-take bribery relationship."
This relationship included demands and interventions in media coverage in various ways on the Bezeq-controlled Walla website, abnormal response to these demands and "self-censorship" made on the website in light of the said demands, against the expectation that Netanyahu would promote significant economic interests for the Elowitzs.
In return, the prosecution claims, Netanyahu carried out governmental actions that were of crucial importance to Elovich and his wife and benefited them and the businesses controlled by Elovich. "
The prosecution attached to the amended indictment a list of 315 incidents that include demands from the Walla website to improve the coverage of the defendant and his family.
In 230 of them, there are indications of Netanyahu's involvement in about 150 demands for him and his family.
"Referrals include demands to improve the media coverage of Netanyahu and his family, to increase the time of exposure of positive news items or deletion, deterioration or change of headlines of negative news items about Netanyahu or his family, demands to negatively cover political opponents, demand to prevent an interview with Netanyahu, etc. plunder".
In response to the indictment, Elowitz's attorney, Advocate Jacques Chen, writes that "it did not occur to Mr. Elowitz that by responding to inquiries regarding the coverage of the Prime Minister and his family on the Walla website, he gave a bribe.
According to Elowitz, the intervention matched his positions and was an attempt to balance the site's political line and the "extreme, petty and outrageous negative line" taken against Prime Minister Netanyahu and his family. "
Regarding the alleged compensation he received from the prime minister - the regulatory benefits to Bezeq he owns - Elowitz claims "Because his actions were not done in favor of an action related to Netanyahu's role and not as a result of expectation of such an action. Elowitz claims that he did not receive any favors or regulatory benefits from Netanyahu as alleged in the indictment. He further states that he did not unlawfully enjoy trivial and obligatory" government actions ". According to Law, Elowitz also claims that the State Attorney's Office does not have an argument about an incident in which he and Netanyahu agreed on a bribery deal, but that it comes to this conclusion from the chain of events that indicates the existence of an expectation. Or such an understanding.On the other hand, Elowitz argues that the description of the prosecution is sinful to the truth and does not reconcile with reality while the prosecution ignores material facts and weaves others into its claim.
