Case 4000, the largest and most complex of Netanyahu's files, does not stop generating headlines. Today, as you may recall, Israel Hayom exposed the opinion of Senior Attorney Nissim Marom, who was appointed to examine the case of State Witness Shlomo Filber, in which he states that he violated the State Witness agreement. Marom detailed in the opinion a series of substantial contradictions between Filber's testimony to the police after the signing of the state's witness agreement and his testimony in court. A majority of the State Prosecutor's Office, we reported, supports filing an indictment pending a hearing against the state's witness, although no final decision has yet been made.
Nissim Marom, who was the prosecutor in "Mega Case" 512, in which the enforcement system toppled Yitzhak Abergel's large criminal organizations, accustomed to substances of blood, fire and smoke. State witnesses who assisted in the murder. It would be an exaggeration to say that Marom jumped for joy when he was tasked with dealing with a tortured state pro-state and white-collar crime, but he accepted the task. Attorney General and State Attorney Amit Isman were also careful that the move would not be seen as a vote of lack of confidence in Case 4000's organic team and the Tax and Economic District. Eventually, the roads crossed and he came to the conclusion that the district had hoped for him. It would be an exaggeration to say that they jumped for joy, but certainly did not regret it.
Breach of the agreement does not necessarily result in the filing of an indictment. The "reasonable likelihood of conviction" test applies in this case, as in any indictment. The question is whether the testimonies given so far in the Jerusalem District Court weakened, or perhaps strengthened, the suspicions and evidence that the prosecution and the police had against Filber regarding the offenses he allegedly committed as part of his relationship with Bezeq, for which he signed a state-witness agreement. The State Prosecutor's Office also understands that such a case must be carefully structured, that a "reasonable chance of conviction" is far from enough.
Will such an indictment, if filed, have an impact on Case 4000 itself? It depends on who you ask. The prosecution is convinced not. They had already informed the court that they would prefer Filber's testimony to the police and asked the court to abandon those given in court. But the justices really don't have to accept this, and if we interpret the statements of the panel of justices, Justice Moshe Baram, it can be said cautiously that he will certainly not rush to do so. Above all, the judges of the panel have already summoned the defense attorneys and the prosecution to their chambers and announced that the bribery offense did not survive the filters of Courtroom 315 of the Jerusalem District Court. The contradictions pointed out by Nissim Marom are, in any case, mainly those intended to establish the same offense. Since it has fallen, the prosecution has little to lose in relation to Case 4000. A breach of allegiance is still possible, but the bribe sheep has already been slaughtered.
When one reads Filber's testimony in court versus those given by the police, it is not clear what and how he profited from the whole thing. Filber signed the agreement in order to sell Netanyahu in exchange for the release of an indictment. And now, it seems that he did indeed damage Case 4000, but he is the one who helped establish it and provided supporting testimony on one of the offenses of breaches of trust in Case 1000 regarding Netanyahu-Milchan relations, and may even be indicted. State witnesses of the kind to whom Nissim Marom is accustomed have no way back to the mother base. In white collar, it turns out, it's completely different. Filber is now loved and embraced on the right and runs an opinion polling company. In his new area of expertise he has probably made the right move, the public opinion he is interested in is indeed with him. But will it also be the case in the legal field? In testimony Filber gave in court in the case against the prime minister, he moved on the axis between a smile and a tear. We'll see how his own business ends.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us