A blow to the State Attorney's Office: Inditements in Bezeq-Yes case have been dropped

udge Michal Agmon Gonen of the Tel Aviv District Court ruled today (Wednesday) against the prosecution's position on a preliminary question that arose in the Bezeq-yes case, in which an indictment was filed against Shaul Alovich and other defendants, alleging criminal conduct in the manner in which interested parties were promoted.
This means that all charges against Or Elovich (son of Shaul Elovich), who was a director at Bezeq, were dropped; Amikam Shorer, former vice president of development at Bezeq; and Linor Yochlman, who was the company's secretary, and some of the charges against Shaul Alovich. The prosecution will now file an amended indictment.
Against Shaul Alovich, the former controlling shareholder in Bezeq and yes, there is another charge that remains in place - in which Ron Elon, former CEO of yes, and Miki Neiman, former CFO of yes, are also accused of creating a systematic, broad-based rejection - The scope and organization of payments to many yes suppliers, the purpose of which was to create a false presentation of meeting the targets - which would allow additional payment from Bezeq to the Elowitz Group, contrary to Bezeq's interests.
At the heart of the indictment filed at the end of 2020 by the Tel Aviv District Attorney's Office (Taxation and Economy) in the Bezeq-yes case are two interested parties in Bezeq. One, for the sale of Shaul Elovich's share in the yes company to Bezeq Public, which was also under his control; The second is a contract between yes - after it became a company controlled by Bezeq - and a communications space company controlled by Elowitz.
One part of the affair deals with a committee designed to approve the two deals - a committee that was supposed to be secret and independent, but Elowitz, his son and Schorer allegedly received leaks from it, through company secretary Yochelman.
According to one part of the indictment, Yochlman used to regularly update Elovich and his son, who was a director at Bezeq - and in the Bezeq-Yes transaction, also updated Schorer - on the independent committee's deliberations, as well as provide them with minutes of the committee and confidential material prepared for its deliberations. Some of the updates were delivered from the discussions themselves, in real time. The indictment attributes to the defendants offenses of fraud and breach of reporting obligations in connection with the conduct of these committees. The claim was that the committee's discussions and minutes were intended for the eyes of the participants only - and that there was a duty of confidentiality regarding them, and that the very transfer of information constitutes a prohibited involvement in the work of the committees.
However, the defendants argued that even if everything alleged in the context of the transfer of information is true, there are no fraud offenses here. This is because the legal situation regarding the commission's actions was not clear at the time relevant to the charges, and if there is no clear norm regarding information related to the commission - no criminal offenses can be attributed on the basis of exposure to the information.
It was further argued that there is no source in the law that prohibits the transfer of the alleged materials, that makes their transfer necessarily detrimental to the independence or independence of the committees, and that causes their failure to report fraudulent or misleading presentation regarding independent proceedings by the committees.
The judge now ruled that in this case the State Attorney's Office should have avoided crossing the line between civil and criminal and that when dealing with civil contexts, in a corporate-commercial context, criminal enforcement should be reserved for exceptional cases. .
She noted, among other things, that "the accuser in the indictment did not point to any source of the duty of confidentiality, as of the relevant dates for these charges, from which it was possible to learn about the duty of confidentiality as well as prohibiting stakeholders from being exposed to the same information." The accusation that the secretary of the committee was forbidden to transfer materials, or that she was told that these were secret materials. "
The Bezeq-yes affair gave rise to the 4000 case. As part of an investigation by the Securities Authority into the transaction, the unusual connection between the former director general of the Ministry of Communications, Shlomo Pilber, and Bezeq executives, who maintained secret channels with each other, was revealed. Later to the heart of the 4000 case, which is currently being processed in the Jerusalem District Court, the decision today has nothing to do with the charges in the 4000 case.
Amikam Schorer is represented by attorneys Yaron Kostelitz, Aviad Shaulzon and Daniel Rosenblum of Kostlitz & Co. Kostelitz said he welcomed the ruling: "The court accepted all our claims and dismissed the charges against Amikam Schorer. Amikam will finally be able, after years, to remove the matter behind him, and continue to contribute his talents. "
Attorneys Dror Matityahu and Omar Aviram of Fischer's law firm, representing Or Elovich, responded: "We welcome the important decision of the court, which accepted our preliminary claims and dismissed all charges in our client's case."
Attorneys Boaz Ben-Zur, Dikla Sirkis and Idan Seger, representing Linor Yochlman, responded: ".
Attorneys Jacques Chen, Alon Ron and Ayelet Leshem, who represent Shaul Alovich, stated: "We welcome the scholarly and reasoned decision that speaks for itself."
The State Attorney's Office stated that it believes that the allegations concerning the conduct of the defendants in connection with the independent committees of Bezeq describe a factual sequence of significant criminal fraud, and that criminal enforcement in these circumstances is justified in order to protect the investing market. "We will study the decision and consider our steps," it said.
It was also reported that "against Shaul Alovich, Ron Ayalon and Michael Neiman, the first charge is - the cash flow case, which concerns a fraudulent plan to carry the cash flow of yes artificially, in the background of the agreement to sell Eurocom shares in yes to Bezeq."