Haifa District Court Judge Ron Shapira recently ruled that a prisoner accused of defrauding women will be considered to have committed a domestic violence offense, because it is "economic violence." In so doing, he rejected the prisoner's petition, for which the decision he appealed states that the increased administrative release mechanism does not apply to his prison term and therefore he will not be granted early release.
This is a criminal prisoner serving a three-year sentence for his conviction according to his admission of the facts of the indictment as part of a plea bargain. He has previous convictions for threatening offenses, harassment by means of a telecommunications device, receiving something by subterfuge, forgery, receiving something fraudulently under aggravated circumstances, impersonation and fraud, and has been sentenced to previous prison terms.
Haifa District Court (archive), photo: Michel Dot Com
In the present case, the prisoner pleaded guilty to the offenses of receiving fraudulently under aggravated circumstances on two separate charges against two women. According to the indictment, he presented himself as a widower in a dangerous medical condition, as part of a "romantic relationship" he had with the women, in order to receive something fraudulently.
In his petition, he argued that the offenses for which he was convicted do not fall within the scope of domestic violence. Accordingly, he argues, he cannot be deprived of his right to early administrative release. It was also argued that these were not violent offenses and were not family members.
According to the prisoner, this is a conspiracy created for the purpose of the fraud, and therefore the decision is unreasonable and does not meet the conditions of the law and the provisions. He added that the offense of fraud is not an offense of violence or violates freedom or peace of life, and that other prisoners who committed similar offenses were not defined as prisoners of domestic violence.
Court // Photo illustration: Getty Images,
The court rejected the petition and ruled that the petitioner's behavior towards the women he exploited amounted to "economic violence." It was held that even if for the purpose of a criminal proceeding the offenses of economic exploitation cannot be considered violence, in the sense of applying the rules of domestic or spousal violence, there is no impediment to doing so for the purpose of administrative proceedings.
"In my opinion, from an administrative perspective and for the purpose of the administrative process, the petitioner's conduct should be regarded as the use of economic violence through economic harassment, economic control, economic terrorism and economic oppression that the petitioner exerted on his spouses," the judge ruled.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us