In order to convict Netanyahu of bribery, proof of two components is required: first, that he received a benefit, and second, that he understood at the time of receiving the benefit that he would not have received it if he had not held his public office.
In other words - that there is a causal connection between the granting of the benefit and his public role.
This is not a mistake.
In order to convict a public servant of accepting a bribe - the prosecution does not have to prove that he gave compensation in favor of the pleasure he received.
Therefore, even if Pilber did not testify at all, the court could convict Netanyahu if he wanted to.
However, as long as it is proven that the public servant gave consideration to the benefit and in favor of it - the court will decide on a conviction more easily. This is Pilber's "role" in the puzzle of evidence presented by the prosecution to the court.
The lawsuit seems to say: Hefetz explained the essence of the benefit and its importance to Netanyahu, and Pilber proves that Netanyahu not only received - but also gave.
These are give-and-take relationships that constitute a bribery offense.
Pilbar claimed in his testimony that Netanyahu instructed him to help Alovich, and that he asked that if the compensation that Bezeq receives be reduced as a result of the decisions of the Ministry of Communications, it should be done gradually and not sharply, in order to benefit Bezeq.
Pilber comes from the right beds.
He did not deny it, saying at the beginning of his testimony that he loved and admired Netanyahu.
That's right.
His testimony against him in the most serious case of all is therefore difficult for him mentally.
Because all or most of his friends, his reference group and milieu, hold similar views to his own - things are even harder for him.
In cross-examination, lawyers do not usually state their goals to the witness.
It is usually a mistake to do so, since then the witness understands how to frustrate the person interrogating him.
This is why the experienced lawyer, as Ben Tzur, was surprised when he told Pilber immediately at the beginning of his interrogation that his version was not, was not created and is not entirely correct.
Does he trust his love and admiration for Netanyahu to such an extent that Pilber will jeopardize the state witness agreement he signed?
Does he think Pilber is sorry for the day he signed the agreement and wants to go back on it, or does he think Pilber will do anything to help Netanyahu now?
Adv. Ben Tzur undoubtedly has the solutions.
The author is from Bartl-Cohen's office
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us