An indictment was filed against the petitioner, a lawyer by profession, in the Central-Lod District Court on October 27, 2014, alleging theft by an authorized person and other offenses under the Income Tax Ordinance. [נוסח חדש]. On 29.6.2021 the petitioner was convicted of committing the said offenses and on 23.12.2021 he was sentenced to 9 years of actual imprisonment and related penalties.
And a few more articles I wrote:
In the petition, the petitioner requests that the Supreme Court issue an order before it instructing that "The indictment which was filed against the petitioner […] And including any decision in the criminal case, any evidence submitted in the criminal case, any determination and including the verdict and sentence are void and void in principle, due to the lack of substantive authority of the trial court to hear the indictment". This, according to the petitioner, since no legal approval was given on behalf of the Attorney General to file the indictment against him.
Petitioner’s contention is based on the Attorney General’s Directive No. 4.1004, entitled "Early approval for indictment" (below: The directive). This directive defines additional cases in which the prior approval of the Attorney General is required for the purpose of filing an indictment, beyond the cases specified in the law. Among the cases specified in the directive, and relevant to his case, is that set forth in section 2 (f) concerning situations in which "An indictment is filed against a lawyer, and the charge is related to the lawyer’s or his client’s relationship with the police, the prosecutor’s office or another prosecuting or investigating authority, in the course of fulfilling his role as a lawyer.". According to the petitioner’s approach, on the basis of the directive, the Attorney General should have given permission for the filing of the indictment against the petitioner to proceed with its filing, and since such approval was not given, the indictment is void.
Review of the court file in the criminal proceedings (through a system "Net-trial") Indicates that the petitioner submitted to the District Court as early as 9.1.2017 a request for the dismissal of the indictment against him on the basis of the claim that no lawful approval was given for its submission, and this request was denied on 17.1.2017. The court noted that in accordance with section 5 of the directive, "The Attorney General may authorize the State Attorney or his deputies to approve the filing of an indictment, the approval of which is required under this directive not by virtue of the law, regarding certain matter or types of matters.". It was further stated that as is apparent from the accuser’s response to the petitioner’s request, on March 31, 2004, the then Attorney General authorized the State Attorney, the Deputy State Attorney for Criminal Affairs and the Deputy State Attorney for Special Positions to give prior approval."A petition). Accordingly, on 23.10.2014 the Deputy State Attorney for Criminal Affairs then approved the filing of the indictment against the petitioner. Accordingly, the District Court held that there was no defect in the filing of the indictment against the petitioner.
The petitioner did not accept this decision and filed a petition with the Supreme Court in which he raised arguments similar to those raised in his application (Beg"Pp. 732/17). His petition was denied on March 9, 2017, stating that it does not disclose a ground for intervention by the Supreme Court. This is because the district court’s decision was rendered in court and that as much as the petitioner wishes, he can appeal the decision as part of his appeal of the entire verdict when it is given (and for the sake of completeness it should be noted that two other petitions filed by the petitioner to dismiss him for various reasons were rejected"T 7836/14; Bg"ץ 352/16).
On that basis, there was no room for further petition to the Supreme Court. To the extent that the petitioner wishes to lament the decision of the District Court dated 17.1.2017, the face of which is rooted in solid foundations, he will act in accordance with the judgment given in his previous petition. The petitioner’s petition therefore does not reveal any reason for our intervention and must be rejected as aforesaid.