Supreme Court: Netanyahu is required to return money given to him by his cousin Natan Milikovski

The Supreme Court ruled Sunday that opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu will be required to return money given to him and his wife by his cousin Natan Milikovski to finance their legal expenses during his tenure as prime minister. The Supreme Court explained that these funds were given in violation of the Public Service Law - known as the "Gift Law" - and therefore Netanyahu must return to the estate of his late cousin $270,000 out of the $300,000 he received from him.
The court ruled that even though Netanyahu and Milkovski were cousins, the former prime minister was not allowed to receive money from him in such an amount because of their business ties. The Supreme Court reasoned that to the extent that there is a business and family relationship when the dominant element is the business one - then the gift is prohibited.
The Movement for the Quality of Government, which filed the petition, demanded that Netanyahu return the sum of 300,000 dollars that he and his wife received from his cousin Milikovsky, who passed away last year, for the purpose of financing their legal expenses. The petitions also referred to a loan in the amount of two million shekels that Netanyahu took from the American tycoon Spencer Partridge for similar needs. The court ruled in this regard that even though it is a prohibited loan, it will be returned by Netanyahu in accordance with the conditions stipulated in it and not immediately - since it was first approved by the State Comptroller and former legal advisor Avichai Mandelblit, who only later said that it was a prohibited gift.
In the ruling, the judges, President of the Supreme Court Ester Hayut, Uzi Fogelman and Dafna Barak-Erez, analyzed the provision of Section 2(a) of the Law on Gifts which prohibits an employee, his partner living with him or his child from receiving a gift given to him "when he is a public servant". The court insisted that the law does not focus on the type of relationship between the giver of the gift and the recipient, but on the question of what is the dominant reason for giving the gift - is it rooted in the personal or family relationship, or is it because the recipient of the gift is a public servant.
As part of examining the applicability of the gifts law to the grant from Milikovsky, the court pointed to a number of considerations that, cumulatively, indicate that the dominant reason for granting the grant was indeed Netanyahu's being a public servant, including: the nature of the relationship between Milikovsky and Netanyahu, which also included business ties; Milikovski's statement quoted by the ombudsman, according to which the aid he gave to Netanyahu over the years was intended to "free him from financial worries while he is performing an important public role"; and Netanyahu's status as prime minister at the time the grant was received - a unique role with great influence.
The court ruled that Netanyahu must return $270,000 to Milikovsky's estate, including the portion designated for Sara Netanyahu, because the gift law prohibition also applies to the public servant's spouse.
As for the loan from Partridge, the court ruled that it constitutes a benefit since it was granted by a lender who is not at all interested in returning it, unlike a normal commercial lender. The court concluded this, among other things, due to Partridge's willingness to give Netanyahu another grant, which was ultimately not granted. It was further determined that this benefit was given to Netanyahu due to his being a public servant, following considerations similar to those mentioned in relation to the grant from Milikovsky, as well as due to the fact that the relationship between Partridge and Netanyahu was created from the beginning as a relationship between a capitalist and a senior politician.
 In these circumstances, it was determined that on the face of it the gift law applies to the loan, but nevertheless, the court determined that in these specific circumstances there is no reason to order the full amount of the loan to be returned immediately, because it was taken while relying on the state auditor's position and the knowledge of the previous prosecutor who They did not point to any obstacle to taking the loan, and also "in view of the problematic deliberative conduct on the part of the Attorney General and the petitioners in this regard within the framework of the present proceedings".
According to the court, the claim regarding the applicability of the gift law to the loan was asserted by the ombudsman and by the petitioners only at a late stage of the procedure, and this is a problematic judicial conduct that must be given weight. Because of this, the court ruled that the loan agreement will continue to be valid and the loan will be returned accordingly to the conditions stipulated in it, subject to the continued supervision of the State Comptroller on its return in the same format in which the supervision was done during Netanyahu's term as Prime Minister.
The Movement for the Quality of Government, which submitted the petition, stated: "We welcome the court's decision, which in fact accepted the movement's petition and determined that the funds received by the former prime minister from his cousin were given illegally. We are sorry that the enforcement authorities dragged their feet and did not see fit to examine the consequences The criminality of that money transfer, even with a forward-looking view.
"Regarding the granting of the loans, we believe that the King's Way is still an appeal to the Permits Committee, however, since the honorable court ruled that the State Comptroller also has the authority, we call on the State Comptroller to be very firm in ensuring that the funds borrowed by Mr. Netanyahu are returned on the appointed dates, and we will continue to monitor and make sure that indeed So be it. On the sidelines, we join President Hayut's call, and call on the next government to establish a code of ethics for the government immediately, in order to prevent such cases in the future."