Shlomo Filber's cross-examination in Netanyahu's trial continues // Yoni Rikner
The State Prosecutor's Office is holding hearings about the opinion, with most of the prosecutors supporting the filing of an indictment against Filber following the violation, so that the apparent direction is to summon the state's witness for a hearing before filing a criminal indictment against him. At this stage, no final decision has yet been made.
After the testimony of State Witness Filber at the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it was decided to appoint Senior Attorney Nissim Marom to compose an opinion in which he will analyze the testimony of State Witness Shlomo Filber and determine whether he violated the State Witness agreement signed with him - after during the testimony in court, Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh asked to declare him a hostile witness.
Marom's opinion stated that Filber violated the agreement by directly contradicting testimony he gave to the police after signing the state's witness agreement at several points in his testimony in court. Some of them carry a lot of weight.
Netanyahu leaving the Jerusalem District Court (Archive), photo: Mark Israel Salem
In May of this year, Channel 13 News reported that prior to Marom's opinion, the Tax and Economic District submitted another opinion supporting the filing of an indictment. After submitting the latter, Marom was appointed to compose another opinion. Marom is a senior member of the State Prosecutor's Office and was the prosecutor in Mega Case 512 against Yitzhak Abergil, and as such has unique expertise for state witnesses.
Tried to reconcile the contradiction
At the hearings, it was already agreed that State Witness Filber reversed himself and in his testimony did everything in his power to undermine his incriminating version against Netanyahu. One of Filber's most significant contradictions was when he retracted his testimony to the police regarding Netanyahu's hand movement during the "guidance meeting" and said that Netanyahu did not seek to benefit Shaul Elovitch but to shake off Elovitch and his requests.
A significant contradiction. Shaul Elovitch and Benjamin Netanyahu, Photo: Amit Shabi, Oren Ben Hakon
Filber admitted that he reverted to adopting his earlier testimony as he gave in an investigation at the Israel Securities Authority, when he was a suspect, while abandoning the one he gave to the police after signing the state's witness agreement. Several times, Filber tried to resolve the contradiction, but in the eyes of the prosecution inadequately.
Another contradiction was that while in his police interrogation he said that in 2016 he concealed Netanyahu's conflict of interest with Elovitch's Bezeq company from the attorney general because the "secret channel" was improper, in his testimony in court he provided other explanations.
According to him, he was presented with a false representation by the police. Shlomo Filber in court (archive), photo: Oren Ben Hakon
He also testified that all of his testimony to the police was based on a false representation in his opinion provided to him by the interrogators, explaining the fact that he retracted in court his harsh remarks against Netanyahu that he made during his confrontation with strategic advisor Eli Kamir. In addition, Filber responded to the defense attorneys' thesis that he did not give special treatment to Bezeq or Elovitch, while the police, according to the prosecution, said the opposite.
Not declared a hostile witness
In the state's witness contract, Filber signed that "if it is found that he has breached one or more of his obligations and declarations in this agreement, or it turns out that he gave false statements in the affair or lied... The state will be entitled to release itself from its obligations and will be free to prosecute him and request his detention until the end of the proceedings for his part in the affair."
Already during Filber's testimony, the possibility of an indictment against him arose. After prosecutor Tirosh asked to declare him a hostile witness, Filber understood the significance and said: "I am not a hostile witness, and I do not intend to contradict my statements to the police, I tried to be precise. I will withdraw my last answer and try to stick to my version with the police." The head of the panel of judges, Justice Rebecca Friedman-Feldman, commented that answers could not be withdrawn.
"There is no way to crack public corruption cases without state witnesses." Commissioner Moti Levy at the court hearing (archive), photo: Yehoshua Yosef
In hearings at the State Prosecutor's Office, not only is the question of filing an indictment subject to a hearing following a breach of the agreement examined, but an indictment for what offenses. Before signing the state's witness agreement, Filber was suspected of integrity offenses, but since then many testimonies have flowed in the courtroom related to those offenses, and it is currently being examined whether the evidentiary situation has changed as a result.
The discussions also raised the public interest in preserving the practice of state witnesses and the need to create deterrence so that such cases do not recur. Lahav 433 commander Maj. Gen. Moti Levy recently testified in the submarine case, where he said that "there is no way to crack public corruption cases without recruiting state witnesses."
Hundreds of thousands of shekels
The State Prosecutor's Office has the option of acting against Filber through financial means, in addition to or instead of filing a criminal indictment. Thus, for example, it is possible not to return to Filber the NIS 200,<> deposited as collateral for his compliance with the agreement until the state. In addition, a civil suit may be filed against him. "The state shall be entitled to demand from him the expenses resulting from the relationship with him under this agreement and following the cancellation of this agreement," the agreement states.
He has the option of petitioning the High Court of Justice against the cancellation of the agreement, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
The filing of an indictment against a state witness for breach of contract is an unusual event. If it is decided to cancel the state's witness agreement with Filber, he has the option of petitioning the High Court of Justice against canceling the agreement. This was done in 2011 when the State Prosecutor's Office canceled a state-witness agreement with the perpetrator Yahya Turk after the witness retracted his incriminating versions in a murder case.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us