You

Center-Lod District Court

42209-04-19 State of Israel v. Silver (Supervised Detainee/Prisoner) et al.

27 April 2023

before
The Honorable Judge Liora Brody, Deputy – Avd
The Honorable Judge Michal Barak Nevo
The Honorable Justice Michael Tamir

The accuser
Israel

against

Defendants
1. Amos Dov Silver (detainee) ID 036559680
2. Bar-El Levy (Detainee) I.D. 304864762
3. Ofir Michel ID 039076229
4. Roy Ashkenazi 036418689
5. Ran Buganim, ID 036791416
6. Shimon Tohami 303028484
7. Omri Shmuel Meyerson, 1970 046248977
8. Idan Burla, 1970 207278557

<#2#>
Present:
Counsel for the accuser – Adv. Shiri Rom and Adv. Yoni Hadad
Counsel for Defendant 1 – Adv. Itai Bar Oz and Adv. Nitzan Beilin
Counsel for Defendant No. 2 – Adv. Itai Bar Oz on behalf of Adv. Itay Rozin
Counsel for Defendant 3 – Adv. Kobi Sudri
Counsel for Defendant 4 – Adv. Itai Bar Oz on behalf of Adv. Yaron Barzilai
Counsel for Defendant 5 – Adv. Nitzan Beilin on behalf of Adv. Liran Zilberman
Counsel for Defendant 6 – Adv. Itai Bar Oz on behalf of Adv. Nadav Greenwald
Counsel for Defendant 7 – Missing with Court Permission
Counsel for Defendant 8 – Adv. Itai Bar Oz on behalf of Adv. Einat Ben Moshe (until
you arrive)
Defendants 1 and 2 showed up late (at 09:30)
3,4,5,6
Defendant 7 – Exemption from appearing
Defendant 8 – Exemption from appearing

<#2#>

protocol

Hon. H. Brody: 42209-04-19. State of Israel v. Silver and others. Meeting is April
27, 2023. Before the panel sitting on trial. Present: Counsel for the accuser
Attorneys Shiri Rom and Yoni Hadad, Counsel for Defendant 1 Attorneys Itay Bar Oz
and Nitzan Beilin, Counsel for Defendant 2 Attorney Itay Bar Oz on behalf of Adv.
Rozin, right?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Counsel for Defendant 3 Adv. Kobi Sudari, Counsel for Defendant 4
Adv. Itai Bar Oz On behalf of Adv. Yaron Barzilai, Counsel for Defendant 5 Adv.
Nitzan Beilin On behalf of Adv. Liran Zilberman, Counsel for Defendant 6 Adv. Bar
Oz On behalf of Adv. Nadav Greenwald, Counsel for Defendant 7 Missing with the
permission of the court, Counsel for Defendant 8 Adv. Itai Bar Oz on behalf of
Adv. Einat Ben Moshe who is expected to arrive later, Defendants 1 and 2 appeared,
Defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are present, Defendants 7 and 8 are exempt from
appearing. Court Note: At the beginning of the hearing, a hearing was held, which
was reflected in the transcript typed in Attorney Sudari's request for discovery of
investigative material related to the testimony of Attorney Inbar Alon Levy, we
suggested to counsel for the parties before deciding on the request in order to
examine whether it is necessary or not that first we hear the testimony of Attorney
Levy and then, if necessary, we will return to complete the arguments and an
appropriate decision will be given.

A.T/1 Superintendent Inbar Alon Levy, after being legally warned, responds in a
primary investigation to attorney Shiri Rom:
Hon. H.S. Brody: Good morning to Deputy Superintendent Inbar Alon Levy, who held a
public servant certificate at the time she was a superintendent, the public servant
certificate bears the date July 24, 2019, Inbar is warned to tell the truth, only
the truth otherwise she is liable to the penalties prescribed by law. Is this a
certificate of public servant that you prepared at the time at the time that I
specified for the record?
Witness, Defense Attorney Alon Levy: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes.
The Honourable S. Tamir: T/485.
<#3#>
Decision
T/485.

An announcement can be made today Friday, April 27, 2023 in the presence of those
present.

Leora Brody, Judge

Lieutenant, Avd

Michal Barak-Nevo, Judge

Michael Tamir, Judge

Hon. H.S. Brody: Thank you.

ATTORNEY ROM: I just want a few preliminary questions for Inbar.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, of course. Only you will only present, maybe show what role
there was, and so on.
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes. Exactly.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Please, listen.
ATTORNEY ROM: First of all, good morning. Tell us how long you've been in the
police? What is your role today? What was your role during the period relevant to
the investigation?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: I have been in the police force since 1999.
Hon. H.S. Brody: More out loud, please.
A: 1999 The year I began serving in the police in a position relevant to the
certificate of public servant I was a production manager in the Lahav unit.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. Explain to us what the job is?
A: The production manager is actually the head of the department responsible for
the audio production, when listening stations arise, who is responsible for the
actual execution and implementation of all the relevant guidelines and procedures.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. Yes please.
ATTORNEY ROM: Okay. Now, I present you with your A/485 certificate of public
servant.
Hon. S. Brody: Could Inbar explain to us exactly what you see there?
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: We see here, I only for the recorded record state that the
certificate of the public servant is made up of a table.
Attorney Rom: Who drafts?
Hon. H.S. Brody: The first column is the wiretapping order number, court file and
position number. Please.
Attorney Rom: Who drafts this consultation?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: This consultation is based on a fixed version
set by the professional division, the SIGINT Cyber Division, which is subordinate
to the Investigations and Intelligence Division of the National Headquarters.
Q: Okay. And you say it's a fixed wording, what does that mean? I mean, what do you
check before you sign it? Let's ask it this way.
A: According to the wording of the certificate, the checks that are carried out
before such a certificate is signed are checks that indeed all wiretapping warrants
were issued correctly, the positions that were composed as a result.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, wait, wait. First of all, was it properly spent in the realm
of preparation and going to court?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: On the level of preparation.
Hon. H. Brody: The Legal.
A: And going to court.
Hon. H.S. Brody: On the legal level.
A: Right, right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: This is the first test.
A: This is the first test.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That you do it.
A: I do it after the commissioning unit is responsible for issuing the orders.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: By the way, in the meantime, will you submit a binder or will it
be lonely?
Attorney Rom: That's 8 binders.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Okay. 8, Okay.
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes.
Attorney Sudari: The idea is that at the end of the hall the whole hall will be
full of binders up to the roof.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Great idea.
ATTORNEY SUDRY: As with these obsessive hoarders.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: You can stop in the meantime.
(Pause in recording).
ATTORNEY ROM: You started answering the question.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Please.
Attorney Rom: What are you checking?
Hon. Barak Nevo: When you check that the orders were issued properly, you check
after the commissioning unit responsible for issuing the orders has already
checked.
Witness, Defense Attorney Alon Levy: So I will explain, the orders come back from
the court with the judge's decision, we make sure that the judge did permit the
listening, and then we transfer the order to implement and raise a position, the
positions are raised accordingly.
Hon. S. Brody: Wait, so we're now moving on to the technical side right now for
phase two?
A: The technical stage, I say again, is also not in my hands.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, I didn't say, we just want to trace the steps.
A: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Because it is.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Transferring the orders to whom?
Attorney Bar-Oz: It was legal, now technical.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes.
Hon. Barak Nevo: So you pass on the orders to whom?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Raising positions.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: We are transferring to the responsible entity in
the SIGINT Cyber Division at the national headquarters.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. Yes.
A: And you get back notified that the position has been connected and uploaded.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That position?
A: That the position was composed and raised.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes. So this is the second step.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Are you checking something here?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: From this stage, no, from this stage we actually
produce the products of the position.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wait, you skipped, first of all explain to us from one more stage
a little earlier, the position went up and then you are notified that the position
went up and then what happens?
A: From that moment on, we in our systems can see the position and its products and
begin treatment.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Okay. I mean, do you see something flowing in?
A: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, please.
Attorney Rom: So I'm just repeating before you sign the PR, at what point do you
sign the PR? Let's put it this way.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: The Public Counsel was signed at the end of all
the treatment of the listening stations after they were analyzed after the State
Prosecutor's Office decided to file an indictment and there is a request to file a
Public Counsel, and then we go again in accordance with the positions of the
Defining Attorney's Office and the certificate of confidentiality, and note in the
Public Works Counsel these positions and the fact that they are positions that
arose in accordance with court orders and all the procedures to which we are
subject.
Q: Okay. I don't have any more questions, the truth, I'll just ask to submit.
Hon. S. Brody: So what are we actually seeing here in this document?
Hon. H.S. Tamir: B-T/485.
Hon. H.S. Brody: At T/485? In the PRC itself?
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: We are, in fact.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Because we're actually seeing a collection of numbers, one we said
is a case that's the court order number and the position number, so what do we see?
A: This actually indicates the wiretapping positions that were conducted in this
case, indicate that there is an order according to which every position was raised
and the order is an order as I mentioned that was issued by the commissioning unit
and examined and composed and the position was raised lawfully.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. And that the production of the same position of the products
we received was also done in accordance with all the procedures to which we are
committed.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Excuse me, wait a minute, I see that Mr. Buganim is joining us,
when did you join?
Mr. Buganim: I would get sick.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, he was, he was.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Was from the beginning.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: He's still with us in the morning coffee.
Hon. Barak Nevo: So wait.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Bogans 5, No. 5 we didn't list?
Hon. Barak Nevo: She wrote about 3 and 5 that there is no stabilization.
Speaker: Me too.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, they do.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes, we saw you.
Hon. H.S. Brody: They were, Ofir too, yes, they are, so maybe a mistake, they
showed up. Thank you.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes, sorry.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What do you give us?
Attorney Rom: I want to introduce her to something else, I present to you from
Court Binder1 that it actually starts from your CPA P/485 Just for example, here at
the beginning of the binder there is a disk with all the conversations on it of all
the positions by folder, by position.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: How is the disc marked?
Attorney Rom: The disc was marked, wait, the disc, sorry, the disc was not marked
but the conversations are marked inside the disc are marked according to position
Each position has the, there is a table of the exhibited binder in which we will
put first position Ofir Michel T/486 So the production pages are T/486A The
transcripts are this divider on which is written the name of the defendant or the
witness whose position is in his case and inside there are all the transcripts of
the relevant conversations.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So just a formal question, I mean, basically all the detail that
we have in the PRC is in the same order and in the same order as in the binder.
ATTORNEY ROM: In the same order as the Attorney General's Office, yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It comes to back up in quotation marks.
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What was submitted to the court.
ATTORNEY ROM: That's right, right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Is it called binder 1?
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes. And basically the T/486 is the same position that is how it is
marked inside the disk.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Perhaps we will ask some more general question here.
ATTORNEY ROM: No, so wait, just before that.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, please.
Adv. Rom: T/486A for that matter is production pages that even within each buffer
it begins with production pages which is a kind of table of contents of the
conversations that may also have been passed on to the defense attorneys, who is
responsible for this on the production pages excluding production pages?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: The burning of the materials is done by
referents in the production unit who are authorized to do these burns.
Q: Okay, and you're the one who puts out this production chart later?
A: That's right.
Q: Okay.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait.
Attorney Soudry: Did you put production pages in France?
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes.
Attorney Sudari: Because we don't have production pages in the material.
ATTORNEY ROM: Of course it does.
ATTORNEY SODRY: No, we only have the transcripts.
ATTORNEY ROM: No.
Recorder: Attorney Sudry, put on a microphone.
ATTORNEY SODRY: No, no, all right.
ATTORNEY ROM: No way, can't be.
ATTORNEY Soudry: We don't have production pages.
ATTORNEY ROM: No, I remember, we definitely moved production pages, it's not, June,
they say they didn't get production pages, can you check where it is in the defense
attorneys' material? Yes, the table.
ATTORNEY SODRY: I haven't seen.
ATTORNEY ROM: Touching, relevant, such.
ATTORNEY SODRY: I know what a production page is.
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes, it has to be, there is no such thing as none. How do you know?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, it exists.
Attorney Rom: It's just for convenience that this page doesn't have any
information, it's just.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, you can know what is confidential.
ATTORNEY ROM: That's right.
ATTORNEY SUDRY: A production page says what came up.
ATTORNEY ROM: Table of contents.
ATTORNEY SUDRY: That's right.
ATTORNEY ROM: Exactly, a table of contents that they want now. Ok. So okay, so I'll
just hand over the binders, ask to submit the binders 1 to 8.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What will be our marking for the file?
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Just a second, the disc I want to mark as 485A.
ATTORNEY ROM: All right.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: No objection, right?
ATTORNEY ROM: No.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Okay. So there you go.
ATTORNEY ROM: Mr. Yesman?
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Yes, yes.

<#4#>
Decision
The disc is 485A.

An announcement can be made today Friday, April 27, 2023 in the presence of those
present.

Leora Brody, Judge

Lieutenant, Avd

Michal Barak-Nevo, Judge

Michael Tamir, Judge

Hon. H.S. Tamir: Then the disc was marked.

Attorney Rom: I took out the consultation so that it would be.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Okay, we have here too.
ATTORNEY ROM: So I can show her.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: You can put it here, the same thing. So there are numbers here.
Attorney Rom: So the numbers, the first binder is T/486.
The Honourable H.S. Tamir: 5.
Attorney Rom: 5.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Witness?
Attorney Rom: Until T/488, the second binder, but I'm without. I handed over the
first binder.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Say later it's for the record.
Adv. Rom: 485 to T/488. The second binder is I don't have the table of contents.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Then you might say for the record so we can locate it.
ATTORNEY ROM: Do you have your copy of the table of contents? Get.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Court Note: Internal marking.
Adv. Rom: T/489.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, wait.
ATTORNEY ROM: Excuse me.
Hon. H.S. Brody: In our internal marking for locating the binder, binder number 27
is our internal marking.
ATTORNEY ROM: Okay.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But as far as the exhibit is concerned. Yes.
Attorney Rom: The second binder is T/489 to T/490. The third binder is T/490, the
fourth binder.
Hon. H. Brody: T/489.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: No, second, second.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Say at the end of T/468 until we can also register.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: She said, she already said.
Attorney Rom: The fourth binder is T/490, 491, the fifth binder is T/492 and the
sixth is also 492? The sixth binder is also T/492, and in fact the wiretapping of
Boganim is this.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The first binder, what number is it?
Hon. H.S. Tamir: I'm in a second, let's mark first.
Hon. S. Brody: The first 486?
The Honourable H.S. Tamir: 485.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The first?
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Up to 489.
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: And only the third one comes out 490.
Attorney Rom: This T/492.
Hon. H.S. Brody: From 490 to ?
Hon. Barak Nevo: What is the last binder?
Attorney Rom: The seventh binder is 492 to 495 and the eighth last binder is 495 is
the continuation of 495.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So we have T/490 with T/491, yes?
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Which?
ATTORNEY ROM: It's the seventh, it's the eighth.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Okay.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Do you want anything else to ask?
ATTORNEY ROM: Just tell me, when we are.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Maybe I'd ask some general question, I don't want to get into that
because you're on behalf of a court right now, but maybe given the procedures are
confidential, right? The procedures are confidential, but maybe she can make some
general statement, what is the examination according to the procedures, explain to
us or will Attorney Sudri ask?
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes. No, I thought I'd leave it for cross-examination.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So we'll leave it to him, all right.
ATTORNEY ROM: Okay, just one technical question. In the midst of every conversation
I want a moment to show, bring me one binder, no matter which one.
Attorney Beilin: Just tell us what you chose, which binder did you choose?
Attorney Rom: First, just, it doesn't matter, it's just for the matter that you
explain to us within each transcript we have a number listed here like this F.A.
number, CD number, wiretapping number, call, yes, so what does that mean and
drawing number, so can you just explain what it is?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: What is everything?
Q: Yes, yes, what is the drawing number, what is the call number?
A: I will just preface by saying that the format of the transcript is also
determined as a fixed format by the professional division, in terms of the drawing
number it is our position number, the number of the relevant conversation within
it, the date of the call.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Excuse me?
A: The number of the relevant call within that position, the date on which the call
began, start time, end time, who are the speakers as far as they can be identified,
and here are also the parameters of who initiates and who receives the call and in
what language the call was made.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes. Wait a minute.
A: And the details of the transcriber.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Excuse me?
A: And the details of the call transcriber.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes.
ATTORNEY ROM: That's all.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Actually, you can come and say, as it happens with public servant
certificates, that many other factors dealt with from the stage of issuing the
order until its production at the various stages, including the technical matter,
and in fact by virtue of your role testifying, this is what emerges from your
testimony.
Witness, Defense Attorney Alon Levy: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You have collected the measure and put it into this certificate.
A: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Please.
Attorney Rom: Where do we see an expression, let's say, of conversations that are
forbidden to be transcribed, such as a confidential conversation with a lawyer or a
conversation whose content concerns privacy or things of that nature?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: This is reflected in a list of conversations
that you called the production output, in which the classification of the
conversation is indicated, it is indicated that if the conversation is a
confidential conversation, the confidentiality of course is done according to the
law, regulations, procedures, whether it is professionals whose conversations must
be confidential, whether it is intimate conversations that concern privacy rights,
whether it is members of Knesset, and so on.
Hon. H.S. Brody: In this case, that is not the case.
ATTORNEY ROM: No, we have intimate conversations here.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Is there privacy here?
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Okay, okay, so I'm backtracking.
Attorney Rom: During the conversation, some of it is not transcribed.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Got it. Yes. And also considered irrelevant, both privacy
protection and irrelevant.
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes, right, right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Basically all these conversations there can always be a package of
private conversations and they are classified as generally irrelevant.
Witness, Attorney Alon Levy: And it is true that they are sponsored so that they
will not be accidentally exposed to any kind of exposure.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Unless, I say mostly in these cases that this is not the issue
here.
ATTORNEY ROM: Maybe as well, we also have, maybe yes in light of the court's
comment so we also had a matter of by the way Orha maybe the witness wants to
elaborate, we had one case.
Witness, Defense Attorney Alon Levy: I will explain, as soon as a listening station
arises and conversations of someone whose conversations are supposed to be
confidential are recorded from the other side, as I mentioned earlier, then there
is another request by the unit inviting the court in order to obtain permission to
listen to those conversations and bring them before the court so that it can decide
whether they can be used or whether they remain confidential.
Q: Do you remember who it was in that case?
A: I can't remember the passage of time, but this is the usual conduct and we are
adhering to it.
Q: And who goes to court and asks to issue this permit?
A: The commissioning unit responsible for the order is responsible for the case.
Q: Okay, thank you. I don't have any more.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Please, Attorney Beilin.

A.T/1 Superintendent Inbar Alon Levy, responds in cross-examination to attorney

Nitzan Beilin:
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Good morning, Inbar.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: Morning light.
Q: My name is Nitzan Beilin, I represent Amos Dov Silver together with Itai Bar Oz,
present here. We'll make it short, you've given us some explanation here.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Short, but out loud, an agreement was made.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Yes, you gave us some explanation that made us understand a little
bit what is actually happening in the Public Works Department, I will just ask a
few supplementary questions on this subject in order to see the missing parts.
First of all, just to make sure, were you actually a division commander within the
SIGINT unit in Lahav 433 at the time?
Witness, Deputy Commissioner Alon Levy: That's right
Q: Is this one of several parts or?
A: Let me explain, at that time there was a unit called the SIGINT divisor within a
blade.
Hon. Barak Nevo: I didn't hear the word.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: The SIGINT division that included 3 production
parts, I was the head of one of these divisions, and this division actually
provided the audio production services to all Lahav units, in this particular case
to the cyber unit.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: I understood and you were in this position during the entire
period, let's call it, from March 18 to March 19, when wiretaps were actually
performed?
A: I took on this role, if I remember correctly, in the summer of 2018.
Q: In the summer of 2018, did you serve in the same role until at least March 2019?
A: Yes.
Q: I mean, you weren't the whole time there was wiretapping in this case, the
wiretapping started on March 18.
A: Maybe, I remember, yes, yes.
Q: Okay.
A: That's right.
Q: All right. Now, you were also here, we saw you in a petition for discovery of
evidence that was connected to the system, wasn't you?
A. Maybe someone looks like me, not me.
Q: Ask, find out. Good. You've given us some general explanation of what you're
doing about the orders, so we'll call it a little bit more detail. Did you
personally handle one of the warrants issued in this case: wiretapping orders?
A: I dealt with in what respect?
Q: You took, as you said, the first check you do after the unit issued the orders,
you said you accept the order, check that the order is signed by a judge, was
requested by a relevant deputy commissioner from the unit for that matter.
A: Yes.
Q: Let's say the object of the order is related to the phone you want to listen to
and connect the position, is it something you do personally or is it someone in the
unit, let's call it, in the department?
A: Sometimes I'm sometimes a deputy, a sergeant, but in the end, the person who
approves the elevation of the position in accordance with the order, after
examining the order, it's me, it's the head of the production department.
Q. That is, even if someone else checks in the end, he comes to you with all the
forms and says, 'I checked.'
A: For further reference.
Hon. H.S. Brody: If you can just say that you look at us, it's hard to hear, are
you saying that after the court has already issued the order we reach the stage of
implementation, it still goes through your control?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: Absolutely, yes, head of the production
department, yes.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Excuse me for a moment, at 10:15 o'clock Attorney Einat Ben Moshe
joined.
Attorney Beilin: Can you tell us here in which orders you did this and in which
orders you did otherwise? Do you have any internal listing let's call it on the
subject?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: An internal record of the person who carried out
the initial examination of the order?
Q: For example, yes, if the computer has Rubrica X checked?
A: There may be registration on the computer.
Q: Y confirmed?
A: There may be registration on the computer but still the responsibility is mine
as the head of the production department, I am the one who goes through and gives
the final approval.
Q: Got it, I mean, in terms of calling it your work procedures, I don't need you to
tell me, I don't want methods and means, I'm just asking if there's some procedure
that says who's checking? Who approves? And when and after signatures of what
parties is allowed to upload the listening station itself?
A: Absolutely, there is a breakdown of all the procedures required.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I mean, just because there's a court order doesn't necessarily
mean it's being implemented, that is, it's checked according to needs.
Witness, Defense Attorney Alon Levy: Absolutely. It was checked not according to
needs but again to make sure that a court decision did not limit the production in
some way.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I understood, I understood.
A: To see that we are accurate in the dates set by the judge, to see that
everything is according to it.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That means working according to the order.
A: According to the order, yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Not whether to exercise or not.
A: No.
Attorney Beilin: I understood, that is, in practice, I hope that I am formulating
myself correctly, but if you do not correct, who does, call it the registration for
raising a position in accordance with the order? After all, at the end someone
writes, 'On such and such a day, at such and such an hour, I raised a position from
such and such a number according to a court order,' who technically ends up making
this record?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: So I return to the technical issue, the
technique goes back to the technological elements at the national headquarters and
I have nothing to do with them.
Q: You have nothing to do with it at all.
ATTORNEY ROM: The witness nods.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: I have nothing to do with them.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: You have nothing to do with that. That is, both the registration
and the connection itself of the connection station is called the technical one, I
came to say physical but apparently this is not true, but the connection was
somehow not done technologically and the registration on the connection was done
you say at the national headquarters by the SIGINT Cyber unit there?
A: Yes.
Q: Got it, nothing to do with you?
A: No.
Q: No. And do you get news from them, let's call it, that the registration and
connection has been made?
(Pause in recording).
A: Yes, we get an indication that the position has been connected and from that
moment, as I mentioned, we are responsible for the products that arrive.
Q: I understood and then you actually do your checks, you raise the position, you
listen to the position, I understand that every listener who hears a position is
himself doing the classification for conversations?
A: That's right.
Q: I understood and after that there is which.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, just a second, just a second. Yes please.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: And after the classification is made, does anyone go through this
initial classification? The State Attorney's Office moves later on, but are you in
your unit?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: Yes, first of all I would like to point out that
the classification is also done in accordance with the file and the instructions
given by the commissioning unit on what the affair revolves around, what offenses
are involved, and so on, this is how the initial classification is done and of
course in accordance with the provisions of the law regarding confidential
conversations, as I mentioned.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait.
A: After that, the classification and handling of calls is transferred to the disk
information of the intelligence division in that inviting unit.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait a second, which array?
A: The desk layout.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Okay. of the commissioning unit.
A: Of the commissioning unit, there is their further review of the classifications
and really at the end of the process the classifications are determined by the
State Attorney's Office.
Attorney Beilin: By the way, who was the head, if it would be correct to call them
that, the SIGINT unit in Lahav at the relevant time?
The witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: The head of the party at that time was
Superintendent Orit Nachmani.
Q: Is she doing any research on this? That is, your examination of the divisors
within the divisor of the actions that are done within?
A: You mean about supervision and control or about the activity or about.
Q: For example.
A: Compliance with procedures?
Q. I don't really know what she's doing, it's all I ask.
A: There are regular supervision and control processes by the SIGINT Professional
Division at the National Headquarters, as well as internal control and supervision
processes relating to all the issues we deal with.
Q: Got it. Now, why, by the way, do not be offended by the question, there is no
such intention, why are you approached to issue the certificate of public servant?
That is, why not the head of the party itself, which was at the time, or the SIGINT
Cyber Brigade, who are the ones who connect the positions?
A: That's the determination and that's the guidance of the professional division,
I'm petty.
Q: The directive is for one of the heads of the departments to sign the GDPR or?
A: The directive is that the head of the production department in whose unit the
positions were produced is the one who signs the consultation.
Q: And this despite the fact that according to what you explain to us, the person
who connects the positions and is responsible for all this aspect is the national
headquarters, the SIGINT Cyber Division, not with you?
A: But I remind you that the Public Works Authority relates mainly to the fact that
the positions were raised in accordance with the orders, and this is the
examination that was done with us and that the production was done in accordance
with all the guidelines, and that too is our responsibility, so that the Public
Works Administration is definitely mine.
Q: And when you are asked to prepare the PRT again without going into some in-depth
detail, but your procedures and guidelines and binding instructions determine for
you some kind of examination procedure or some kind of procedure according to which
you work before signing the PRC? "Do X, do Y, do Z, check with someone like this,
another factor"?
A: Of course, there is also reference to this in the procedures, to do all the
necessary checks in accordance with what is written in the Public Works Regulations
in order to make sure that everything is done legally.
Q: All the tests or is there some detail of what needs to be done? Again, no, don't
tell me what the breakdown is, but is there detail?
A: There is detail about how the CPA is issued and edited and the necessary checks.
Q: The tests required before you issue.
A: That's right.
Q: And you can tell us today that you did the tests, let's call it your entire
checklist.
A: Absolutely.
Q: Before you signed the PRT itself?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, is there a specific procedure by the way for issuing a PRT or is that part
of what we call the general course of your instructions?
A: It is very difficult for me to answer that a. The procedures are not before me
in full detail and the guidelines.
Q: No, but I guess you've done it so much so it's something.
A: Only I will finish the answer. The mention of the subject of the Ministry of
Public Works appears in a number of different procedures, guidelines, each in its
own aspect or according to needs, and therefore I need to really address it
broadly, but things are done in accordance with all the guidelines and procedures
of the SIGINT Division.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You're bringing it all together.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: And can you give us something about these procedures at the title
level, let's call it? Again I'm not going into methods and means, I don't want the
details of the procedure but at the title level let's say an inspection procedure
before composing a position, a procedure for preparing a public servant
certificate, a procedure for closing a position at a title level only, not even the
real title of the procedure but.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: It's difficult if not impossible because it's a
whole world, I don't want to elaborate, but really it's a whole world of
guidelines, procedures, temporary order guidelines in the spirit of the times, and
so on.
Q: How many guidelines do you have for this.
A: Everything concerns its specific things, and it will be very difficult for me to
relate even at the level of headlines from memory to the whole world of sigmental
content.
Q: To understand what it is.
ATTORNEY ROM: Perhaps you will give examples.
Attorney Beilin: Just to understand also, I thank my colleague, also to understand
what the whole complex is, how many procedures are there? Binders, like there are
here in court that were filed today or are we talking about 4 procedures that we
are working on?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: There are quite a few procedures and guidelines,
I don't know how to give a number, I don't know how to give a title.
Q: Dozens?
A: I don't know how to say again.
Q: I don't know.
A: It's not at my doorstep.
Q: I wasn't in the production department at SIGINT.
A: I don't manage the procedures and guidelines of the SIGINT division, it's not
local.
Q: No, but you worked there or served in a position there for an extended period of
time, so.
A: So I'll explain further, the Sigint world is a very broad world that touches on
all kinds of content worlds, I served as head of the production department, which
is one area within the Sigint world.
Q: So we'll just ask about this area, great.
A: And within this field there are interfaces and guidelines and procedures and
regulations and the law for other areas as well, so now to come and define what
exactly belongs to audio production and what does not and how many of them there is
is an impossible task, certainly not to extract from my memory a position I was in
over two years ago.
Q: Where do you serve today?
A: Today I am the head of Lahav's cyber branch.
Q: The head of the cyber branch, I understood.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Anything else?
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Further to my friend's remarks, if you have any examples, maybe
you can give us an understanding of the procedures and guidelines, what are you
actually doing? As far as you can remember.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: What am I actually doing in my previous
position?
Q: Absolutely.
A: In my role as head of the production department?
Q: In your previous position, in accordance with the procedures and guidelines, our
friend Ms. Rom commented here that perhaps you can give some examples of what you
do accordingly?
A: I just, there are so many, but I can say that everything in the production
process is done according to procedures and guidelines, there is a procedure.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Stop the recording for a moment, please.
(Pause in recording).
Hon. H.S. Brody: Thank you very much. Yes, Adv. Beilin.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Yes. I asked about general examples, you said, 'It's a bit
problematic to give,' right?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: I can give a great many examples, the question
is what is the direction, what do you want?
Q: The direction is to try, that's what I'm mainly trying to figure out what part
of you that you do before you issue the public servant certificate, what tests do
you do? Do you check something with someone, you go to the national headquarters,
you go back and check the order? Do you make sure that the position exceeded the
phone number written in the order? That there is one stand for every phone number?
I, too, now give examples.
A: Absolutely, absolutely. No, no, absolutely. You directed me more, thank you. As
for before writing the PRT, of course things are being re-examined by myself, in
this case, the head of the production unit who signed the TAS.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, not so fast.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: Checking again.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You're checking.
A: The orders.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You're checking, but you're saying you're actually checking with
other parties.
A: No, at this stage of the CPA, I'm actually checking that those orders that were
issued at the time are indeed orders signed by a court, that the production was
indeed done within the limits set by the court, if there were any? Of course, I
check with the State Attorney's Office which positions are relevant to this case.
Sometimes, there may have been some positions that it was decided to sponsor or not
to use.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes.
A: And all these tests are definitely done by me before I issue the consultation,
there is also an examination of the production method all along the way also during
production, supervision and control, all the processes that are carried out and to
your question regarding the guidelines and procedures yes there are a lot of
guidelines, procedures, references that talk about how to produce? Who is
qualified? Who? What training should I go through along the way? And all these
things are very organized and very detailed.
Attorney Beilin: Okay, let's say something more specific, what kind of test do you
do, for example, regarding the CDs? Because you write to us, for example, in the
Public Works Counsel that the CDs that were given to the defense and the court "are
faithful copies of the original and faithfully reflect the things exchanged between
the parties and were recorded by the police," how do you do such an examination?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: So I say this, the production is always done
without intervention at the burning stage, that is, when discs are brought out
these discs are burned in systems that are built so that there is no intervention,
I mean, it's not that now someone comes and decides what is and what is not, there
is a structured, regulated shape that was also determined by the professional
division and so the discs are burned, They are signed by the same referent in the
unit who is authorized to do this activity and who has undergone the appropriate
training.
Q: And the test you do, what does it include? You say everything is done
automatically, let's call it maybe we should have received an institutional record
that everything was done in a computerized system according to let's call it
presence, but what check do you do when you write to us that the discs are a
faithful copy? Because you trust the computerized system?
A: I make sure that the referent who performed the operation is a referent who is
authorized to do it and did it in the prescribed way according to our instructions.
Q: And that is what you do about every order?
A: Absolutely.
Q: It could be a different referent and what did you do, say, about the period when
you weren't department head? I mean you arrived in the summer of 2018, the
wiretapping increased on March 18, what happens to some of the listening?
A: Still, the decision regarding the burning of the positions and the indictment
and all the future conduct was made long after I arrived, so even positions that
began before my time we took responsibility for them, the producers who were there
at the time reviewed them and the consumption was already made by the production
department that I was responsible for.
Q: That you were responsible. Good. A few more questions really.
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right?
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Yes, yes. Now if I understand correctly in fact according to one
order several positions can go up to several phone numbers, each phone number gets
one position number, is that correct?
Witness, Defense Attorney Alon Levy: Yes.
Q: Okay. And from listening to those recordings, it's something that I don't really
understand how it happens, the recording starts even before the subject answers the
phone, that is, if I have, for the sake of example let's say I'm the subject of the
listening my phone number, calls me with me, the recording starts as soon as he
called and even before I answer and so there is listening, I can give you just an
example, we also hear the dial tone and also sometimes hear the person call it the
caller talking and then we hear 'hello' on the phone and then Answers the subject
of listening to the order.
A: It falls under methods and means I can't comment on whether the system.
Q: No, no, factually it sounds on the recording, there are no methods and means
here.
Hon. Barak Nevo: But you ask how can this be? So she tells you, 'How can it be,
it's the methods and means.'
ATTORNEY BEILIN: But are you aware that it happens this way? Because it's heard on
the recordings, there's nothing here.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: If it is heard in the recordings, then it is
heard in the recordings.
Q: I ask if you are.
A: There is no recording before I can refer to it, I say it falls under methods and
means.
Q: I'm asking if you're aware of this?
A: Her name? That such a thing could happen in principle in a theoretical world?
Maybe.
Q: In the practical world of the recordings we receive.
A: I don't know, I don't have the recording.
Q: And if we play you maybe one and see what it's like. I hope she will faithfully
represent this. I don't know if this will sound good enough because I see the
answer before me, if we don't already show your honor in the summaries this issue.
(Playing a recording.)
Just a second, we'll play it for you again. Here, in the easy example, you'll
hear the dial tone before answering.
(Recording is played again.)
Do you hear the Hello? Did you hear that?
A: I hear the hello, yes.
Q: This is the example, you hear a dial tone even before answering a listening
subject.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And you hear 'Hello.'
Adv. Beilin: In this case, it's a recording of Ran Buganim, call 171 from 19.7.18
It's just for example, here we're not talking about the text, it will be in other
conversations, he gets a call, he's the subject of listening and we hear the dial
tone, to the same extent we have conversations where we already hear the talk of
the person calling, we hear him in the background talking in his home and then
answer the subject of listening to the conversation, Do you know this topic? Are
you aware of this?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: To the extent that there is such a thing that
comes up in the conversation, then it exists, I have no ability to relate.
Q: I don't know, maybe you're specifically aware? I'm not asking you how this
happens because I'm not going into methods and means right now, I'm asking if
you're aware that it's happening?
A: Unaware specifically, it may happen again.
Q: Are you aware in principle that these things happen?
A: It is possible that things will happen in one way and another, in the end we are
talking about a means of communication that even when I call my best friend
suddenly I can hear something else on the phone from some communication malfunction
on the way, we all know that, so to say that I am not aware, of course I am aware
that there are things.
Q: Look, when something repeats itself regularly, my conclusion, maybe it's wrong,
is that it's related.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Gentlemen with the phones there, sorry.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: It's really about technology, let's call it, and methods and
means, which again I'm not asking how to do it and what the capabilities are, I'm
just really asking the basic question is, are you aware that in the framework of
wiretaps, things are recorded while the listener is not part of the conversation?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: In principle, if there is such a thing?
Q: In principle?
A: Maybe so, maybe not, again it's each position and everything individually, each
means of communication is individual, each mobile is individual, things change,
they are very, it's a world that's a technological world that can really happen
according to a lot of variables.
Hon. S. Brody: But the question is, suppose something like this happens, then is it
even used?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: To the extent that there is any irregularity, I
don't even know if it is an anomaly.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It's not unusual, you say, listening is given on a certain line
that is also in a certain use, but if someone used the phone they lent someone the
phone and it was picked up, then it's not part of the investigation.
A: So I will relate, as soon as we recognize on hearing a conversation that a
completely different person is speaking.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes.
A: We define this conversation as the conversation of others and examine whether
the person who took the phone is involved in the affair and we have the authority
to listen to him yes or no? They consult, of course, with the professional division
and the legal advisor of that unit.
Hon. H.S. Brody: If it's not Jose,
A: As much as another person really speaks.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Within the scope of the order, what do we do with it?
A: So we define it as other conversations, conversations that we don't produce.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Okay.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Yes, I'll play you another conversation for example.
Attorney Bar-Oz: This is an example of a conversation.
Recorder: Put on a microphone.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Just an example of a conversation from one of the objectives in
the case where you can hear the dial tone is really a conversation in the
background.
(Playing a recording.)
The dialed one speaks. Only now does he say 'Hello' it begins.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Not the dialer.
Attorney Bar-Oz: The dialed, the dialed.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Does the dialer speak before answering the phone?
ATTORNEY BEILIN: No, you hear the dialer before the obligation.
Hon. S. Barak Nevo: The dialer.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay.
Hon. Barak Nevo: That's what I'm saying: The dialer, not the dialer.
Attorney Bar Oz: The dialer.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Yes, that in this case the dialer is the listener.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes, yes, I understood.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: To clarify the same point again, do you know these things? It just
comes back in more and more conversations that we hear a recording even before
there has been an answer and before the subject of listening is even in the
conversation.
Hon. S. Barak Nevo: Object.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: The object of listening, sorry, is in the conversation. Again, the
question is in principle: Do you know that there is such a thing? And what do you
do about it? Because we've received quite a few calls like that.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: We know that such things happen, as we know in
the world as well.
Q: No, it doesn't happen here, it's something that always happens because it's
inherent in your way of listening that we can't find out.
A: So I will say again, the way things are listened to and the way things are
received is at the doorstep of the professional division and the technological
elements that are in it.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It's confidential.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: Yes, confidential methods and means.
Hon. S. Brody: Well, let's move forward, Attorney Beilin, that's it, are we done?
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Almost, yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Thank you.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Now tell me this, when you put together insertion positions, I
really don't know how it works, you pre-enter the listening end date and it ends
automatically according to the order or is it someone controls it manually and
says, let's say, keep an eye because he knows that on January 1, 2045, listening
ends and he has to physically cut it off?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: Again, the matter of connecting and
disconnecting the positions is not, it is not in the hands of the production unit,
which is the implementing end, I can say that the production automatically ends on
the day the order ends, how is it done technologically? You need to contact the
relevant authorities.
Q: Okay. Just a little question, do you also perform volume listening as part of
your job?
A: Volume listening?
Q: Volume listening.
A: In a role as head of production at the time, no.
Q: No.
A: No.
Q: You don't deal with it at all, haven't you issued warrants for volume tapping?
A: No.
Q: Haven't you checked?
A: No.
Q: Don't know the subject at all? Ok. Is. I have no further questions.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Thank you very much, Attorney Sudry, please, sir.

A.T/1 Superintendent Inbar Alon Levy, responds in cross-examination to attorney

Kobi Sudari:
Hon. Barak Nevo: Can you estimate time?
ATTORNEY SUDRY: Not long. We'll finish until.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Until 11?
ATTORNEY SODRY: I have to finish before the break. Because after a break I become a
werewolf, so I don't want that to happen to me.
Hon. Barak Nevo: This is not a werewolf.
ATTORNEY SODRY: It's a wolf.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, we'll discuss that later.
Attorney Sudari: I suddenly have a lot of hair on my hands and that's when I don't.
Hon. Barak Nevo: We will discuss later what it is.
ATTORNEY SODRY: Inbar, good morning. If I understood your testimony correctly, what
did you explain to us that the technical installation of wiretapping to a line that
is permitted to be listened to is done by the SIGINT Cyber Division at the National
Headquarters?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: Brigade.
Q: Division. They make all the connections, they decide which means to install,
that's the part of them that you don't testify to.
A: That's right.
Q: Not testifying because your public servant certificate doesn't refer to it, not
because of confidentiality reasons, right?
A: That's right.
Q: Great. Now, does that mean they also have a wiretapping station?
A: I don't know where it is, so there is confidentiality, methods and means.
Q. Can you tell me it's not with you?
A: Excuse me? No, there are movements here, I'm a bit distracted. Yes. Excuse me.
Q. I say, but can you tell me that you don't have it?
A: That's right.
Q: Great. You testified here that your part or that of your divisor is expressed in
seeing the system as its position and products, right? That means in your system.
A: I get the product, yes.
Q: Okay. Now when you tell me 'in the system,' does that mean that you actually see
the products of the position on a computer screen?
A: Obviously, we use computers, we're not in an era.
Q: I ask questions just for what's called sharpening, okay? Ok.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wait, no, so I didn't understand, when you say that you see
listening products on your computer, you don't see text on the computer.
Witness Alon Levy: Of course not, we have.
Hon. Barak Nevo: What do you see as a marble line?
A: I can't elaborate again.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Okay.
A: It's methods and means, but we get the product, the conversation, and then we
get the audio itself, the audio itself.
ATTORNEY SODRY: Okay. This computerized system that connects the wiretapping
station somewhere to your offices is actually running non-stop 24/7/365, right?
Isn't it like someone comes on and turns it on and off at some point?
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: I don't know how to answer these questions, it's
not in my field of profession and I don't know, I don't know.
Q: Does the SIGINT Cyber Division also see the products of the position in real
time?
A: I don't know how to answer, I assume that someone who has some kind of authority
in the division can, if he wants to, go in and see for maybe supervision and
control or similar things.
Q: Okay.
A: But I guess, I don't know.
Q: 100%. So in fact, you also can't tell us in what other places, if any, we see
the products of the position?
A: Can I say that within the framework of all the procedures and guidelines there
is also reference to who is authorized for the products? Who is allowed to view
them? Who is authorized to produce them?
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, not about the authorization I think.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: In terms of accessibility of the system?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, I think that is what is meant by the question.
A: I don't know how to answer.
ATTORNEY SODRY: I will simplify, I will simplify. Wait, wait, I'll simplify. What I
mean is which other places have the same computer screen that you assume for that
matter that I have permission.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Let us say that there is authority.
ATTORNEY SODRY: No matter.
Witness, Deputy Commissioner Alon Levy: I understand.
Hon. H.S. Brody: This is not a question of authority.
ATTORNEY SUDRY: That's right.
Witness Alon Levy: I don't know.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That question.
ATTORNEY SODRY: True.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It is a more technical question.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: I don't know how to answer.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Is there something parallel to the position or whatever it is
called that you can see, track, produce, do, there is also something parallel that
someone can also look at? That's the question.
A: Maybe, I don't know how to answer.
Attorney Soudry: 100%.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: I don't have the knowledge in this area.
Q: Can you tell us what safeguards protect this entire system from penetration and
disruption of computer material?
A: I am also again, sorry that these are the answers I can give, it has to do with
the technological world and the professional world of the SIGINT Cyber Division and
not with me.
Q: Not at your doorstep, okay. Now, with you, after receiving the products of the
wiretapping station, we listen to them and, if necessary, transcribe them, really?
A: That's right.
Q: Okay. The so-called wiretapping worker who is in your department, when he
listens to the products received by a certain position, he knows in advance, after
all, who the suspect to whom the position relates.
A: That's right.
Q: True? Ok. When he hears the first product received at the station, after the
wiretapping has been installed, the first conversation that takes place, how does
he know that the person speaking in the first conversation is indeed the person who
is allowed to listen to him?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. You say this is only the first conversation question, after
that you can already compare.
Attorney Sudari: We'll talk about the others shortly, but let's start with the
first because it's first.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Okay. So how do we know?
Witness Alon Levy: So I say, sometimes it's really very difficult The first
conversation can be very, very short and unrepresentative, he keeps listening until
he recognizes the person.
ATTORNEY SODRY: How?
A: Whether it's in the name, or later more details that go into the conversations,
there can be all kinds of details that the person submits, there could be someone
else who happens to him by name, as the identification is formed we will continue
to listen to the position, as long as there is concern that it is not the person
being listened to, we will actually make the initial conversations, understand
whether yes or no and at that moment we will stop and turn for instructions The
unit also needs to consider whether it wants to ask the court to listen to that son
A person we haven't listened to or we're really blocking these conversations and
that's not the position.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Or they shelve it actually.
ATTORNEY SODRY: Okay.
Witness, Defense Attorney Alon Levy: Yes.
Q: But since you're telling me.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Only.
ATTORNEY SODRY: Excuse me.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Excuse me a little. From the Q&A I understand it's not necessarily
that in the first conversation the identification is carried out, sometimes it's a
process.
(Pause in recording).
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: It can take.
Hon. H.S. Brody: If I understood correctly from the answer to the question. Please,
Attorney Sudry.
Attorney Sudari: So if that's how I'll be precise for a moment in the framework of
my question, the identification may not take place in the first conversation that
is recorded at the position, and therefore I will go to the first call in which
identification is made, that is, it may be that in order it is the first to be
recorded.
Witness, Deputy Commissioner Alon Levy: Okay.
Q: But it may be in order that this is the 30th call recorded.
A: Yes.
Q: True? I mean the first 30 conversations, just for example, that listeners don't
know for sure who the speakers are more than once, right?
A: Usually it's a few conversations and you already understand who the speakers
are.
Q: Okay.
A: Nothing more.
Q: Those few conversations, okay, where you don't know who the speaker is, you're
telling me that the change happens in some sort of first conversation after that
because you actually recognize the speaker by name, let's say, 'Oh Dad, what's the
matter?'
A: Or by other means that join.
Q: I'll go for a moment on the example of the name, okay?
Hon. H.S. Brody: That's an indication, there can be an indication.
ATTORNEY SUDRY: That name is an indication.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: Preliminary indication, yes.
Q: But let's clarify this, when we say, 'That's an indication,' then we say, 'Oh
Abby, what's the matter?' No, 'Oh Avi Cohen, ID card,' so and so, 'What's the
matter?' Obviously because everyone, we're what's called, we all talk phone calls,
right?
Hon. Barak Nevo: Avi Cohen is identified without an ID card.
ATTORNEY SUDRY: Yes.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: It could be calling the bank, 'I'm Avi Cohen,
this and that customer, asking for this and that,' identification by full name.
Q: For example. But if it's conversations between friends and they only use a first
name?
A: Possibly, there are a variety of cases.
Q: My intention is, my intention is that if there really isn't a full
identification, by the way, with Arab suspects it can be even more of a problem
because it's a square name, it's not just a name and a surname, so how can you make
sure there's no confusion here? Because let's say the name is any first name.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What is the degree of security? Shortcut.
ATTORNEY SODRY: That's right, exactly.
Witness, Deputy Commissioner Alon Levy: I will relate, I say, first of all, as I
said, we take the neck of conversations and slowly build the optimal identification
on which we rely, the more difficult it is, the more you reach an endpoint and
there is still difficulty in identification. Sometimes you compare voices between
previous positions of the same person, current positions, Interrogations of the
same person, the person sat and was interrogated Sometimes they do the voice
comparisons and say, 'OK, this is the same person.'
Q: So wait, so actually what you're actually explaining to me is that sometimes
identification is possible during wiretapping and sometimes it is only possible
retroactively after it has ended out of interrogations done to him?
A: I have not encountered cases in which it is retrospective, I have encountered
cases in which there were objections of one kind or another by the suspect
regarding his name in the position, and therefore we were required to make a
comparison to the interrogation as well.
Q: Okay.
A: But we are always able to identify a position based on the position, based on
what is said in it during the conversations.
Q: But when we are now beyond the general explanation, when we want to know
concretely how each and every one of the defendants was identified by his
wiretapping, then the questions in this matter should not be directed to you, but
to the same policeman who was at the production station.
A: To the audio producer, right.
Q: And he was the one who did it.
A: That's right.
Q: The identification and he will tell how in the concrete circumstances of that
person he made the identification.
A: That's right.
Q: Okay.
A: And it's recorded, there are relevant calls that are defined as identification
calls.
Q: 100%. Thank you.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Question, thank you. Allow a moment to stop recording.
(Pause in recording).
ATTORNEY SUDRY: Further to the court's question whether it is yet.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Quiet.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What enthusiasm today.
Speaker: Excuse me?
Hon. H.S. Brody: What enthusiasm.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Not you, the accused.
(Speaking in the background).
Hon. H.S. Brody: Please.
Attorney Sudari: I say further to the question or in response to the court's
question whether the witness is still required to follow the procedures on the
basis of which her brief was written? So I say this, first of all, her testimony
made it clear that she was referring only to the question of production, not to the
question of installing the wiretapping position, that is, all the questions
regarding the installation of the concealed position, the wiretapping of the
position, the manner in which it was performed, the means by which it was done, the
defense of the position.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That's from the sources.
ATTORNEY SODRY: It's not to her.
Hon. H.S. Brody: She only got information from the other sources that did it.
ATTORNEY SODRY: Yes, but, she's not, wait, no, no, no, second, Madam has already
gone to stage two. First of all about the technology part.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That's right, we heard together.
ATTORNEY SUDRY: She can't testify and she didn't get any information about it
either, I mean she assumed it was done, how was it done? What was done? Who
performed? It's not questions to her, now, she does, she can testify or her counsel
relates to the production issue, I mean as she described it, products are obtained
when for these products this is the part she testifies to when there too and that
was actually the last question I aimed at, she also says 'the concrete
identification regarding a certain and anonymous person is if you have questions
then ask the person who specifically identified', Now, therefore, for that matter,
the procedure at the moment is not necessary for the interrogation of the witness
in this matter.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I also think, all right.
ATTORNEY SUDRY: That's right.
Hon. S. Brody: So it was, it's good that we heard and saved time.
Attorney Sudari: 100% That's why I said it, we and contrary to what the accuser
says, we don't just want to burden ourselves in order to burden or make a fishing
trip.
Hon. S. Brody: First of all, the moment you don't want to weigh down in order to
weigh down, that's already a positive thing.
ATTORNEY SODRY: Of course.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Great. So first of all, is there a re-investigation, ma'am?
Attorney Haddad wants something to ask, sir?
ATTORNEY ROM: No.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So first of all, we want to thank you.
Witness, Superintendent Alon Levy: Thank you very much.
Hon. S. Brody: Have a good week and we are waiting for which witness?
The Honourable Barak Nevo: Benjamin Shoshan.
Hon. H.S. Brody: To Benjamin Shoshan.
Attorney Sudari: Shoshan Binyamin.
ATTORNEY ROM: So already after the break.
Attorney Sudari: The first name is Shoshan.
Hon. H.S. Brody: After the break, because it's another 5 minutes of break. I have a
question, in the 5 minutes left.
Recorder: Stop, ma'am?
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes, please.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes.
(pause).

Hon. H.S. Brody: Resumption of discussion after recess.

Adv. Ziv: Adv. Amit Ziv, on behalf of Adv. Liran Zilberman and us.
Hon. H.S. Brody: "So far I have been represented by my other friends," yes?
Attorney Ziv: That's right. Exactly.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Thank you. As for Ashkenazi, yes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Regarding Defendant 4, I will point out.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Ashkenazi.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I am replacing Adv. Barzilai, Defendant 4 said that his wife's
father is not well.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Detailed medical problems.
Attorney Bar-Oz: He is in poor health and we asked for consent to release him in
order to take the children from school.
Hon. H.S. Brody: From the continuation of today's discussions, yes. And we agreed
and allowed and wrote down Ashkenazi's own statement that there was agreement.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, that the hearing will take place in his absence.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Also of the prosecution that the hearing continue.
Attorney Bar-Oz: And he will have no complaints.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Will continue in his absence. Very well.

A.T/2 Maj. Shoshan Binyamin, after being legally warned, responds in a preliminary
interrogation to attorney Yoni Hadad:
Hon. H.S. Brody: Hello to Shoshan Binyamin.
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: Good morning, good afternoon. Sergeant.
Hon. H.S. Brody: RSB, right?
A: Sergeant. With water.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Sergeant, sorry.
A: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: A sergeant major who actually returns to the witness stand, just
for the record, sorry, we will note that Shoshan's previous testimony touched on
what we call in completely double quotation marks The trivial sentence refers to a
discussion regarding the propriety of the evidence and is now invited in connection
with other issues for further clarification in the main case. He is warned to tell
the truth and only another truth, he is subject to the penalties prescribed by law.
Attorney Yoni is investigating in a primary investigation. We will also say as a
preliminary note, please, not to repeat things that were but to move forward with
issues. Please.
ATTORNEY HADAD: What was your role during the Tallgrass investigation?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: I was responsible for the more senior part of
Telegrass, what we called the more senior part, forensic examination, interrogation
of Amos Dov Silver, and sometimes I was also present at interrogations of other
suspects from the same cluster.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. Lily, what was the first sentence you said you had, your job
was what?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: I was responsible for what we defined as a management
team.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Okay.
A: The senior.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Okay.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Whose own?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: of the Tallgrass network.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Was there a team that controlled basically everything, all the
clusters?
A: The more senior part is loaded with the smaller head and below.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So you were responsible for Eshkol or at all?
A: On a specific cluster.
Hon. H.S. Brody: On a particular cluster.
A: Of course, yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: In the senior cluster, what you read, you were.
A: Yes.
Hon. Barak Nevo: In what sense were you responsible?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: I did most of it, I did most of the forensic
extraction, I can't say all of it, but I did forensic extraction of computer
materials, I investigated some of the interrogations.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Investigation of Defendant 1 Part of the investigations.
A: Some of the investigations.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And presence.
A: And sometimes I was also present, yes, at interrogations of other suspects.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Other things you did?
A: Maybe so.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But that's big time.
A: But that's the main thing.
Attorney Haddad: How was the interrogation of Defendant 1 Amos Silver?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: On a general level there was a relaxed interrogation,
he most of the response was that he did not prefer not to answer on the advice of
his lawyer, but specific things that he wanted to convey and important points that
he wanted to convey, he of course responded.
Q: You have reports that you have prepared that we will also submit regarding the
Facebook examination of Defendant 1 Amos Silver.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You will ask to submit them, you will not submit them.
Attorney Haddad: How was it carried out?
THE WITNESS, SERGEANT BENYAMIN: It's through a police user, not my personal user,
but just beyond, it's like Open information, just went to Facebook and I recorded
what was there.
Q: When you say open information, what do you mean?
A: That anyone can see it.
Q: All right. I would like to submit the documents prepared by the witness in
accordance with the table we have compiled.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. I object and I say so, I am also a little surprised about the
request itself after we had preliminary talks but still want to submit without
telling us anything so no problem, my friends told us in February that the witness
Shoshan Binyamin would come to testify after Fleisiger, we knew this all along,
what Shoshan did, even though he did some actions after the indictment was filed it
was still in 2019 it has been known to my friends for 3 years, All this time we
acted when we were preparing for Shoshan's interrogation, assuming that the table
that was given to us prior to his testimony in December 2020, from which we did not
investigate some of the exhibits, because these are action reports and there are
those that were not at that stage, those exhibits who want to submit and on this we
prepared an investigation and they were not many, on the eve of Memorial Day at
11:29 A.M., a list of 11 pages with 150 exhibits is sent to us, so we have reached
T/500, so there is from T/501 to Z/ 650, some of the exhibits.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Were the exhibits in the material?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Certainly there were in the material like all the other 10,000
items that were in the material, and of course when a witness arrives.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I understood the difficulty.
Attorney Bar-Oz: As to this day, we need to focus.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The difficulty is clear.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Because they don't submit everything.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So what do you suggest?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Now some of the exhibits, first of all physically we didn't even
go through this list to the end, I started printing on my home printer when I ran
out of ink and pages, there are some things there for example.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It's a real shame that it's last minute.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Too bad.
Attorney Bar-Oz: And my friend said there was a malfunction.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I say.
Attorney Bar-Oz: We got it.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It is true that it was.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's strange to me that now that's how they're trying to file.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. It's true that it was in the material and everything is
true, but on the other hand, in these cases and in the way we work here in an
attempt to help you and the court in the sea of material, it's really hard to get a
list of 150 exhibits on holiday eve, it's hard
ATTORNEY ROM: So I say.
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: My friend said there had been a malfunction and
apologized and I accepted it.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You don't expect ten thousands.
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The question is how do we solve the problem?
ATTORNEY ROM: So I say, we're trying, ma'am, to do it as generally as we promised a
week before the testimony.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Even earlier.
Attorney Rom: But here was a holiday, there was a rush after the holiday, there
were all kinds of issues.
Hon. H.S. Brody: There were constraints.
ATTORNEY ROM: And constraints.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But what is the point? What's the point?
ATTORNEY ROM: And so we didn't have time to send it on time, we sent it on Monday
morning, right, and I told my friends.
Hon. H.S. Brody: There is a difficulty here.
Attorney Rom: I apologize for the delay, but nevertheless there are basic things
that are clear to everyone that will be filed, such as investigations by Amos Dov
Silver.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No problem, submit.
ATTORNEY ROM: That the witness questioned, it's not that there isn't anything to
question about that all of a sudden, so okay, I don't expect my friend to finish
the interrogation today, anyway he said, I remembered that he said that there are 4
meetings to question the witness.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I suggest.
ATTORNEY ROM: I didn't think it was urgent either.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I suggest the following, we will allow the submission and you can
investigate the documents later.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Why shouldn't they be filed on Monday?
Hon. H.S. Brody: I don't want to.
Attorney Bar Oz: May 1st?
Attorney Rom: What will be submitted?
Adv. Bar Oz: All of Shoshan's exhibits.
ATTORNEY ROM: What difference does it make?
Attorney Bar Oz: After I go over them, I don't know what's there.
ATTORNEY ROM: But it's not like the court will read them.
Hon. H.S. Brody: We suggest.
ATTORNEY ROM: And will go over them today.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It goes into the file, second.
Attorney Rom: What is it when will they be submitted?
Attorney Bar-Oz: There are some of the exhibits that I went through that were
received from the Northern Department, the agent's operation, photos, an affidavit
of things that Shoshan writes down on a transcript.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That there's no problem with that.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Of course there is a problem, the agent is not a witness, he is in
a situation where he will not testify, so how exactly are they going to submit his
statements?
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right, but there is no procedural problem at the moment except
for the body of interest that you can argue about.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, so physically I don't know because I haven't gone through
everything what belongs and what doesn't, I saw, for example.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So why did we invite him if that's the case today?
Attorney Bar-Oz: That there are some things. Excuse me?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Why? So what do you suggest to take advantage of the time?
Attorney Bar-Oz: That it will be submitted at the next meeting. I will question him
today, but Amos's interrogations are no problem you can submit, but there are also
exhibits that I am questioning him about today.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But then you have to split up.
Attorney Bar-Oz: From the previous meeting, but it's a mess, it came out.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The thing is, no, wait, the thing is that he has to testify today
in a primary inquiry, so how do we solve the problem of having something harmonious
for the record and then you can investigate? Can we submit it tentatively so we can
mark it?
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, I have a problem with that, I'm also here on behalf of Adv.
Rozin that there are quite a few of the exhibits that are relevant to his client
and it is quite possible that some of them he will want to object even for the
reasons that I said that it was the agent's material from the agent's activity and
he, like me, received it on the same day.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait.
Adv. Bar Oz: Tuesday at 11:30.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I want a moment.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It has no form.
Hon. H.S. Brody: To propose the following, first of all I understand it and I say
there is a right to object to everything and I do not intend to harm it, we, only
my suggestion is such that it will be marked just so that progress can be made in
the investigation and the acceptance is conditional acceptance with the reservation
of the right to object, maximum then we will not accept it, no disaster will
happen, We don't do anything here, I don't kidnap anything.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I will propose something else, I will propose something else.
Hon. H.S. Brody: To just take advantage of the time.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No, no.
Hon. H.S. Brody: For something else.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I understand that, I also want to investigate him today.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: The prosecution arranged the exhibits according to drums in an
orderly table, so for that matter we will assume that the exhibits were submitted
conditionally, I will investigate it.
Hon. H.S. Brody: On probation.
Attorney Bar-Oz: According to the marking, what is needed they will present in your
honor.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No problem.
Attorney Bar-Oz: And at the next hearing, everything physically will be submitted.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I have no problem with that.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay? Is.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I say conditional so that time can be used.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay.
Hon. S. Brody: Because all in all, you also get, you don't have to grind the mill,
you had to get organized in advance, we're here now, I do, I called the ambulance
with a button, so we'll do something so we don't waste time. So here's how.
<#5#>
Decision
We accept the procedural agreement, we heard the difficulties that were presented
to us due to a malfunction, the list of material was presented to the defense
attorneys close to the time of the hearing, before Memorial Day and Independence
Day, so they had difficulty locating the material and preparing, this is also
acceptable to the accuser's counsel in her fairness. She said that there was a
malfunction, it was material that was in the evidence, so we reached an agreement
in order to streamline the hearing and to save the court's time and of course the
time of the witness Shoshan Binyamin, That the list of exhibits, binders will be
accepted conditionally, so that defense attorneys will retain the right to present
their objection to such and other documents, however it may be, and this also
includes Adv. Rozin, who today appears by name and represents Defendant No. 2. So
please, and the decision is that we accept it conditionally, just say what we get
for the record.
An announcement can be made today Friday, April 27, 2023 in the presence of those
present.

Leora Brody, Judge

Lieutenant, Avd

Michal Barak-Nevo, Judge

Michael Tamir, Judge

Attorney Bar-Oz: We would also like to know how the agent is doing in order to know
if there is any point to our objection?
ATTORNEY ROM: We don't have an update.
Attorney Bar Oz: Same same?
Attorney Rom: We didn't check.
Attorney Bar-Oz: But the assumption is that it is.
ATTORNEY ROM: The last time he is.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But they didn't announce that there was any change.
ATTORNEY ROM: I don't know.
Hon. H.S. Brody: If there was a change and improvement that could affect the case,
they would be informed.
ATTORNEY ROM: We would announce.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So right now the situation is that he can't testify as far as we
understand. Yes?
Attorney Bar-Oz: A long time.
ATTORNEY ROM: Not at the moment.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Right now.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's been like this for two years now, September 22.
ATTORNEY HADAD: What I wanted to propose, some of my colleague's reasons he already
has the reasons for objection that I am not familiar with, what I suggest is that
as much as my colleague wants to raise objections I think it would be right to hear
them in the framework now that we can respond to this matter and to the extent that
it is necessary to clarify something with the witness in the primary interrogation
in order to find out.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But he didn't prepare for the documents anymore, he didn't go
through the material.
ATTORNEY HADAD: No, he has some things that he mentioned that he already has.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Some of the evidence.
ATTORNEY HADAD: That he has reasons for objecting to certain evidence.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, but I don't know if that includes everything from your
exhibits.
Attorney Haddad: That's what I suggested.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What he says he hasn't seen the whole picture, that's what he's
telling us.
Attorney Haddad: Yes, yes, so that's why I'm not here to exhaust all the
objections, but what can be exhausted now I think it's right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No problem.
Attorney Haddad: As long as the witness is in the primary interrogation and you can
clarify things with him as such.
Hon. H.S. Brody: As far as we're concerned, we just want to streamline.
Attorney Haddad: If necessary, I will ask him another question.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Do you want to complete? Please.
Attorney Haddad: I ask him another unrelated question.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No problem.
ATTORNEY HADAD: In my opinion, the objection. And in the meantime, what I will
submit to the court is the list of.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay.
Attorney Haddad: Of the exhibits, we are, in fact.
Hon. H.S. Brody: From which drum to which?
Adv. Haddad: From T/496 to T/670A.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Even more than 180 are displayed.
Hon. H.S. Brody: How do you say? Can less?
Hon. H.S. Tamir: To Taff?
ATTORNEY HADAD: So I'm submitting.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And there are binders.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: 600 and how much?
Adv. Haddad: We keep these exhibits in accordance with the prosecution's custody
summary.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So we'll do it this way.
Attorney Haddad: I will submit you at the next hearing.
Hon. H.S. Brody: We get the list, we have a neat file name of the lists, Judge, can
we attach it?
Hon. H.S. Tamir: No, it's each according to the binder, attached to the binder.
Adv. Haddad: At the next hearing, we will attach the binders and then put it into
the binder.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Okay. Put it somewhere. And for now, the binders will remain with
the prosecution, when it happens.
ATTORNEY HADAD: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: In the custody of the prosecution. And this is conditionally
accepted.
<#6#>
Decision
At the moment the list is accepted, maybe I will mark it with some markup. That
would be T/496A, for that matter with

Today's date.

An announcement can be made today Friday, April 27, 2023 in the presence of those
present.

Leora Brody, Judge

Lieutenant, Avd

Michal Barak-Nevo, Judge

Michael Tamir, Judge

Attorney Bar-Oz: It's better to stay as on the list I've already started marking
exhibits on the list.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Today we are.
The Honourable Hashem Tamir: 27.
Hon. H. Brody: 27th. Moment. Yes. And as mentioned, the binders are currently in
the hands of the prosecution, we hear that there is an objection that can already
be presented to the court. Please, what documents are we talking about that can we
do?
Attorney Haddad: I have one more question.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, please, please ask.
Adv. Haddad: I present you with T/619 barcode 3504.
Hon. S. Barak Nevo: 619?
Adv. Haddad: T/619 Barcode 3504.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Action report, publication of messages and video posted by Amos
Dov Silver in the main Telegram community group.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Do you have a copy of the table for me as well? Copy of the table?
ATTORNEY HADAD: Yes.
Hon. Barak Nevo: The table.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I'll let you shortly.
Adv. Haddad: You wrote here in this document "I entered the main Telegrass
community group on the Telegram app" How do you get in there?
Hon. H.S. Brody: What is the question?
Hon. Barak Nevo: How did he get into the group?
Adv. Haddad: Explain a little about the action, how does this happen?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes, how did you get into the group?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: So here specifically I didn't write, but I personally
didn't go in most of the times and that's why I can't relate to it specifically,
but most of the times I didn't touch Telegram as is it was inside our police
server, folders that police officers were investigating and I went in there and I
saw.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I mean, it's material that was copied at the time.
A: How was it copied and what was done? I can't say that it wasn't me who did it, I
just went in.
Hon. H.S. Brody: But it was a kind of collection of investigative material?
A: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What was that?
A: A collection of investigative material that was inside our server.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's usually, yes, not specifically.
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: I said.
ATTORNEY HADAD: That's right. It was usually.
A: I said, I didn't write and I don't remember if I physically entered here or not.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What you're actually saying was, did it have some kind of digital
documentation like that?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: On a general level, yes, I don't remember this document
specifically, but on a general level, yes, it had documentation. Now we will hear
the tastes of my friend's resistance.
Attorney Bar-Oz: The reasons for the objection of what?
ATTORNEY HADAD: Whatever you want. Not specific about this document.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I have already objected to all the exhibits for today and said
that I have to go through them in order to object.
Hon. Barak Nevo: The objection at this stage concerned the fact that he no longer
knew what to object.
ATTORNEY HADAD: Yes, yes.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Because he doesn't know.
Adv. Haddad: What I tried to say earlier and thought that we both understand each
other is that there are things that my friend already knows that he is also
fundamentally opposed, at least that's how I understood between things.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Do you want me to point out? No problem, there are those.
Attorney Haddad: Therefore, it seems to me that it is right to clarify this.
Attorney Bar-Oz: There is a group of materials, we can discuss it now. There is a
set of exhibits and a set of evidence that are either an adaptation of the source
or the source itself when we talk about materials, about digital evidence produced
by the agent up to the state that as we heard from my friend it remains in the same
state i.e. a static state.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, wait, second.
Adv. Bar-Oz: Accrual status.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Just a second, a second.
Attorney Bar-Oz: He cannot testify.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Wait, the judge asks for a moment.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Just a second.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Sorry.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Are you talking about something general now? That there is a set
of evidence, yes.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: You said that either the source is either the source itself or
there is processing.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Either the witness is processing, for example, the transcript or
certain evidence that the material itself was transferred, downloaded by the agent
to the state, transferred to his handlers at the Northern District Court and from
there, or to the witness or Superintendent Fleisiger, who testified here before
him.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. Yes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: When my friend in fairness said right now at this very moment that
the witness remains in the same status he has been in for about a year and a half.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The health status that has not risen so much.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, he has grown, I don't know, a state of accumulation that
cannot testify.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Not accumulation, a medical condition that at the moment he cannot
testify.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay. Can't testify.
Hon. H.S. Brody: We don't know, actually, we don't have information about whether
he can or not.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Therefore, there is no one to testify about how the evidence was
produced, was he the one who produced the evidence? Did he edit it? Did he
manipulate her? We know it's a state witness, we know it's us, it's the defense, a
person who's a liar, who's a manipulator.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You don't have to.
Attorney Bar Oz: A person for whom files were opened and indictments were filed
while he waited for testimony.
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right, you want to say that you are.
Attorney Bar-Oz: This is a man who everything he has done has to be examined with
iron combs. Now comes the prosecution and when he is not competent to testify.
Attorney Beilin: He also stole from the police.
Attorney Bar Oz: He stole money from the police and committed indecent acts on
minors.
ATTORNEY ROM: That's not true.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You are a signatory to this indictment.
Attorney Rom: It's not that there are no minors there, it's not an indecent act.
(Speaking in the background).
This is an attempt at sexual harassment that was.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Quiet.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Oh, that's in a small way.
ATTORNEY ROM: Please don't say things that aren't true.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: You filed an indictment against him.
Hon. Barak Nevo: What he is saying is a man that everything he has done should be
examined with 7 eyes.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Right, does it matter if it's sexual harassment or an indecent
act? It really doesn't matter.
Attorney Beilin: He stole NIS 330,000 from the police.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right. This they caught him red-handed.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Exactly, you and Yoni caught him.
ATTORNEY ROM: I think there is no room for these comments.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay, so there's no room to submit his evidence either.
Attorney Rom: Every witness, every witness who is a state witness has to check what
he says, it's not related.
Hon. Barak Nevo: There is no doubt in saying that this is a person who needs to be
examined.
ATTORNEY ROM: And he's an accomplice to the offenses and okay, we accept that,
there's no connection at all.
Attorney Bar-Oz: But this is a person who is not qualified to testify.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, no, it's okay, you said.
ATTORNEY ROM: There is no need to blacken his face now.
Attorney Bar-Oz: They're black anyway.
ATTORNEY ROM: To justify that statement.
Attorney Bar-Oz: There is no need to blacken. For example, I will give some
examples of the material, which I managed to go through.
Adv. Beilin: T/571 to 572, T/573.
Speaker: You're not logged in.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Second, second. T/503, T/504.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Tell us a witness.
Adv. Bar Oz: T/518, T/596 It's scattered, it's not a committee.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Okay.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What's there?
Hon. Barak Nevo: I think he read some sequence.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Also T/570 witness.
Attorney Bar-Oz: This is what we go through sporadically.
Hon. Barak Nevo: I understood, I understood.
Adv. Bar Oz: Until T/579.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Drum again?
The Honourable Barak Nevo: T/570 to 579.
Adv. Beilin: T/581.
Hon. H.S. Brody: This is a group to which your reservations apply.
(Pause in recording).
Attorney Bar-Oz: As long as we didn't accept it at the time we did, we could also
tell my friends, 'Put them aside, let's talk about them for a moment.'
Hon. Barak Nevo: We understood that there was a malfunction, we understood that we
were trying to move forward and work with what we had.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I was surprised that my friend came to present all the exhibits as
if nothing.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: No, there are many more.
Attorney Bar-Oz: As if we hadn't spoken.
Adv. Beilin: T/586, T/587.
Hon. Barak Nevo: And more.
Adv. Beilin: 589, 590.
ATTORNEY HADAD: I will reply.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes.
ATTORNEY HADAD: There is, in fact, I divide this reference to this objection into
two types of evidence, one type is meetings of the agent with the Telegrass people
with the defendants.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Wait, just when the witness came out during my colleague's
detailed answer, I might question him about these things as well.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Should it?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes.
ATTORNEY HADAD: I don't know, we heard all the objections, the witness was.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay, but you are now replying, the reasons for the objection are
the resistance, but I may want to interrogate him, you will say so and I will say
so.
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right, you know what, Lily, wait a second just in case. All
right?
THE WITNESS, SERGEANT MAJOR-BENYAMIN: All right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It's not critical, but okay. Wait a second.
ATTORNEY HADAD: So one type is the agent's meetings with the Telegrass people with
the defendants.
Hon. H.S. Brody: With the defendants and others involved.
ATTORNEY HADAD: And others involved who are prosecution witnesses. In real time,
when they are actually talking about Telegrass's activity, everything is recorded
on video with a hidden camera, and the person who operates it is the operator of
the agents who is a witness in the trial, he is the one who turns on, he launches
the agent, he activates a recording device on him, and he is the one who turns off
the recording.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. I mean, all this evidence is things recorded, audio and
video?
ATTORNEY HADAD: Audio, video that this recording was not made by the agent.
Hon. Barak Nevo: But by me.
Attorney Haddad: He just went to the meeting.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Agent operator.
Adv. Haddad: By the operator, you are turned on and off.
Hon. H.S. Brody: The agent himself is filmed there.
Attorney Haddad: That's right, he himself was filmed there together with the
defendants.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, but what Yoni says is that he also has no control over opening
and closing the recording.
Hon. H.S. Brody: To the agent.
ATTORNEY HADAD: That's right.
Attorney Bar Oz: The camera is on him.
Hon. S. Barak Nevo: To the agent.
ATTORNEY HADAD: That's right. The only one who installs it.
(Speaking in the background).
Hon. Barak Nevo: Quiet in the back, what do you have today?
Hon. H.S. Brody: And you're saying that whoever operated the camera will be called
as a witness?
(Speaking in the background).
Attorney Haddad: The person who operated this is witness Reuven Azoulay who will
testify here.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes.
Adv. Haddad: And what the witness Mr. Shoshan Binyamin did was receive these
things, analyzed them and made them available through reports, so in this matter we
don't need the agent at all to submit and meet the conditions of submitting those
recordings, we need Mr. Reuven Azoulay and there is no impediment to submitting the
statements made by the witness.
Hon. Barak Nevo: The second kind.
Adv. Haddad: The second type of evidence is the documentation of Telegram
correspondence carried out by the agent, and here too this type can be divided into
two types because that means things that are.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Who is he? Who is he?
Hon. Barak Nevo: The agent.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: The agent.
Attorney Haddad: Yes, things that he documents himself, things that a police
officer records from the correspondence he conducts.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. From the same correspondence.
ATTORNEY HADAD: From the same correspondence. Now, the beginning of things.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I mean either he or someone else is documenting what he did with
one of the people involved, what the agent did.
ATTORNEY HADAD: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: With one of the people involved or the agent in the process.
ATTORNEY HADAD: Yes.
Hon. H. Brody: Documented.
ATTORNEY HADAD: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Or someone outside is documenting.
ATTORNEY HADAD: That's right. Now, how does it work when the agent is documenting?
He flips through his phone and takes a picture of the screen and then you see the
correspondence and Telegram correspondence. Now, this thing later the police came
and took down all the agent's user content as well, so we also have the
correspondence from the evidentiary download of the police carried out by the
police personnel.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait. This is in case the agent is documenting.
Attorney Haddad: I say this is in addition to what the agent documented, that is,
the police then took down all the groups, all the Telegram correspondence.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, just a second. So you're actually saying that there's
actually double evidence here.
ATTORNEY HADAD: That's right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: So even more so just don't submit.
ATTORNEY HADAD: Second, second. I say but it's formats are different compared to a
snapshot of a phone screen compared to downloading an HTML file file that opens in
a browser.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Everything that exists in the screenshots is also in the full
download as is?
ATTORNEY HADAD: So I say the format is.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Not in terms of format in terms of content?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Content.
Hon. Barak Nevo: In terms of substance?
ATTORNEY HADAD: So no, there hasn't been such a one-to-one comparison of knowing
that really everything is one to one there.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Because if you find some manipulation there, then there may really
be grounds for fear, and so on and so forth.
ATTORNEY ROM: It's hundreds of groups, hundreds of hundreds of groups, no one has
checked a group group that really is exactly that.
Attorney Bar Oz: No, but Shoshan's specific actions are comparable, you refer
exactly to the place and time, it can be done easily.
Attorney Beilin: It doesn't matter, but who will testify about the content?
Hon. Barak Nevo: I didn't understand what Shoshan's actions have to do with now?
Attorney Bar-Oz: They are now seeking to submit specific exhibits that support the
accuser's thesis.
ATTORNEY ROM: No.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's specific, it's not the content of thousands of hours of
conversations.
ATTORNEY ROM: What Shoshan did.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's a few announcements.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Someone checked whether.
ATTORNEY ROM: Actually processing.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Some of these conversations you're talking about.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I was busy standing by the siren, I wasn't.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, no, all right.
Attorney Bar Oz: Apologies.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Bar Oz, we understood. Simple yes or no will do.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay. Not.
Hon. Barak Nevo: All right.
ATTORNEY HADAD: Now, what happened in that aspect of the course of the
investigation, the police who analyzed, even though they have the multiplication,
in fact when they came for the analysis they took the version as the agent copied,
this is what it presented to the interrogees, this is what was presented to the
interrogees and some of them confirmed it, that is, they refer to the statements
and confirm the correspondence as well, so in part it becomes admissible also by
virtue of statements by or the prosecution witness that they are part of the
involved or statements of the defendants that confirm the correspondence, It's
partly and also the analyses in terms of then see to exhaust it why most of the
correspondence out of a big jumble of correspondence is done from the agent's
materials, so that's why the witness's reports are actually substantiated, he
analyzes what the main things are, he bases it on the things he got from the
agent's documentation, but of course there's it from another source.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, just a second. But what of course is there?
ATTORNEY HADAD: There's this from another source, but.
Hon. Barak Nevo: But it was checked that the other source is the same for these
specific things?
Attorney Haddad: So we said no at the one-to-one level.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Not either?
ATTORNEY HADAD: Compare.
Attorney Bar-Oz: So here you too have a job to sit.
Attorney Rom: Not a word went through every sentence, that's what Yoni says.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: There isn't a single memo that says, 'I examined the evidence.'
ATTORNEY ROM: No.
Attorney Bar-Oz: You don't need every word.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: What is it?
ATTORNEY ROM: You can check it out.
Attorney Beilin: I don't have to prove anything here, that's what Kobi said in the
morning, agreed already in the morning.
ATTORNEY ROM: Then we'll look into it.
Attorney Bar-Oz: So you also have a job to sit.
ATTORNEY SODRY: There are the files.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Like me.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: There is full.
ATTORNEY SUDRY: They don't check and accept it.
ATTORNEY HADAD: Another point. Also to the court.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: Full of groups.
Adv. Haddad: In the process of issuing the search warrants, what is presented is
actually the same evidence that was received, the correspondence in the same
configuration as received from the agent, this is also what was before the
investigating unit when it went and asked for the search warrants.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Well, that's beside the point.
Adv. Haddad: That's right, I'm a bit back to the previous stage.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, all right. But you know, there was a pressure of time there,
and maybe it wasn't clear that the agent was a little more problematic than they
thought.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: No, but there is also admissible intelligence information, it has
nothing to do with the evidence.
Attorney Haddad: That's right, right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: This name served as what was in front of the investigating unit
and the judge who issued the orders.
Hon. Barak Nevo: All right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Here now they want to submit this as evidence.
ATTORNEY ROM: No, it's also relevant.
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, no, all right.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: No, that's where you could have submitted it as intelligence
information.
Hon. Barak Nevo: This is relevant to another question.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: You didn't need admissible evidence.
Hon. Barak Nevo: This is relevant to another question.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Exactly.
Hon. Barak Nevo: The question of what was before the court and whether it was
relevant.
Attorney Bar-Oz: We also objected in real time to this evidence.
Hon. Barak Nevo: That is, was there a basis for issuing the orders? This is one
question and evidence in itself that is being submitted today is another question.
ATTORNEY HADAD: Yes, so in the end what we mean what we want to do, what we want to
do is to submit the statements in fact what the witness summarizes and brings about
those correspondences when we are aware of the fact that we have to see later where
they were trained from, some of them I said, some of them were trained in
statements by witnesses, it may be that the agent's situation will allow him to
testify and thus everything will be legalized, Some were trained in visual
downloading.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, wait, just a second.
Attorney Bar Oz: A person who tried to commit suicide before testifying, do you
want to bring him again?
Hon. H.S. Brody: Wait, moment, moment, second.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Really.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, give him a moment. You're basically saying that we haven't
been tested one-to-one, but potentially, you're saying, let's say the agent doesn't
testify, some of the testimonies of witnesses who have confirmed, this part is the
removal of the police.
ATTORNEY HADAD: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes?
ATTORNEY HADAD: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And what else?
ATTORNEY ROM: The defendants who are also accused.
Hon. H.S. Brody: And defendants who approved.
ATTORNEY ROM: And other phones that were found in them of witnesses and defendants
in which correspondence was found.
Hon. S. Brody: The thing is that in fact we, what we seem to be lacking, is on the
individual level of vision, there is a question here, there is some difficulty
here.
ATTORNEY ROM: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That we don't know, 'This evidence yes, this evidence is not,'
it's like something that is possible, the question is whether, when the prosecution
presents its answer to the objection, it comes and says that if there really isn't
coverage, that's what you should.
Attorney Haddad: We agree.
ATTORNEY ROM: We are, yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Second, it's not that they need to check, they're right, it's you
need to check that if it is found that the agent is not testifying and there is
evidence that the agent is the first source and has no backing that is admissible
in evidence, the prosecution declares that it does not rely on it. That is the
question.
Adv. Haddad: We are already declaring this.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Okay. Yes, is there anything else to say, Adv. Bar Oz?
Attorney Bar-Oz: I say so, first.
ATTORNEY ROM: Wait, I just want to explain from a practical point of view the
meaning of the correspondence are sometimes if we assume we take the high
management group group where management corresponds, there are thousands of
correspondence there, nobody expects that the court if we submit it through another
witness now will read thousands of correspondence in every single group that we
access, in fact the processing that this witness did he took all.
Hon. Barak Nevo: You talk non-stop today, what do you have?
ATTORNEY ROM: Sometimes hundreds of pages.
(Speaking in an instant).
Hon. Barak Nevo: I did not speak to you.
Mr. Levy: I emphasize that.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Let everyone know that Barel is a good boy. Everything is fine.
We're hearing a murmur from the backbenches today, so, please.
ATTORNEY BEILIN: It must be Tohami's brother.
Hon. H.S. Brody: There are objections and arguments at the moment.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Not found.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Legal arguments and we want to be attentive. So what actually.
Attorney Rom: That the witness takes hundreds of pages.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Let's go back a moment after all this clarification, so we say
that the main thing in the testimony that concerns the object of the objection is
that the witness made an arrangement.
ATTORNEY ROM: Actually, the witness processed and emphasized what in all this very
long correspondence, yes, or in all the hundreds of correspondences what clarified
what was relevant to the investigation and that he issued and according to it.
Hon. H.S. Brody: This is actually an auxiliary document.
ATTORNEY ROM: Exactly, exactly.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Like a transcript.
ATTORNEY ROM: But it's important because in light of that.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Sure.
ATTORNEY ROM: The investigation was conducted, if he is. Ok?
Hon. H.S. Brody: We understood.
Recorder: Stop for now?
Hon. Barak Nevo: Yes, please.
(pause).

<#7#>
Decision
We have heard the arguments of counsel for the parties and there is no need at this
moment to repeat them, in the circumstances of this case we decided to allow the
testimony of witness Shoshan Binyamin regarding the processing of thousands of data
collected in this case, as it was made clear to us from this and this is a
definition, in a kind of auxiliary tool for the parties and the court that analyzed
the evidence in terms of relevance into a document so that the relevant materials
can be used for the questions in dispute. We understood that the evidence in
question could be divided into several categories, as appears in the arguments of
counsel for the parties, one of which relates to material related to the agent, we
were told that here too there could be a "backup" of the agent's testimony from
another source, because we do not have the tools to examine things, however we saw
fit to accept the document when the prosecution declared that at the end of the day
a comparison will be made between all the sources from which those evidence was
collected and insofar as there is evidence related only to the agent's testimony
And they cannot be proven from another admissible source and the agent will not be
able to testify due to his health condition and will not seek to rely on it. At the
moment, we see no impediment to this reference document being submitted to us, and
of course, like any reference document, for example, a transcript, it is of course
subject to the original evidence being placed before the court, and that is what we
order.

An announcement can be made today Friday, April 27, 2023 in the presence of those
present.

Leora Brody, Judge

Lieutenant, Avd

Michal Barak-Nevo, Judge

Michael Tamir, Judge

Hon. H.S. Brody: Well, please, go on. Lily, please, come, to oppose Shoshan came
out even though it was possible to decide even if he was found. In any case, we
decided to accept the document of the analysis, this is the legal decision, and in
the future we also explained what will happen. Right now as far as you're
concerned, we accept it. Yes.
Attorney Haddad: I have no further questions. Thank you.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No further questions, Adv. Bar Oz is investigating.

A.T/2 Maj. Shoshan Binyamin, responds in cross-examination to attorney Itai Bar Oz:

Adv. Bar Oz: Hello Shoshan.

The witness, Maj. Benjamin: And congratulations.
Q: How are you?
A: Good.
Q: We met here on December 21.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Yes?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes, yes. December 21, 21 I think.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So it's time.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Not that I remember, I went over the previous protocol.
Hon. H.S. Brody: So it's time for us to start running.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Really with the evidence.
Attorney Bar-Oz: The interesting witnesses are yet to come.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Soon we'll talk about a criminal organization, about weed, that's
the interesting thing about the case.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That's right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I say that the interesting witnesses are yet to come.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That's right, it's all interesting.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. Good. We already know from your last testimony and we won't
start from the beginning all the acquaintance that you were then an investigator in
Arik Benjamin's cyber unit. The officer was a placegiger, right?
THE WITNESS, SERGEANT MAJOR. Benjamin: Yes.
Q: And you're actually investigating the Telegrass case deep into the undercover
phase around April 2018, right?
A: I don't remember the dates, but yes, before.
Q: Okay. Have you gone through your exhibits? You did a refresh, right?
A: I did, I did.
Q: Great. So you know this case from the very beginning and you were involved in
the undercover investigation, we'll talk about what actions you also took in the
outbreak itself, on the night of March 12, 2019, you did actions, do you check your
watch?
A: No, I hung up the phone.
Q: Got it. You also flew to Ukraine to bring Silver and after that in the whole
part of the open investigation you were quite involved in the investigations of
defendants in the administrative part and you interrogated Silver in August 19.
A: Yes.
Q: Great. Very well. Now look, before the outbreak you did the extraction of
digital material, the preparation of action reports, the summary of digital
evidence, right?
A: Okay.
Q: I ask?
A: Okay, it does.
Hon. Barak Nevo: It is, it is not?
THE WITNESS, SERGEANT MAJOR-BENYAMIN: I did, OK, I don't know what a summary of
digital evidence is, I did an extraction of the devices.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I'll give you an example.
A: You don't have to show me the material, just say, you don't have to show.
Q: No problem. No, there were a lot of them, I'm talking to you about this as a
chapter head, for that matter Raya Barcode 2731 Action Report checking the social
groups that 47AK manages.
A: Yes.
Q: Roy Ashkenazi, remember that?
A: Yes.
Q: Great, it was done on December 10, 2018, remember that?
A: I remember that.
Q: Great. Now look, here I will present you the evidence here is the copy.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Is it a drum or?
Attorney Bar-Oz: This is a drum that again, unfortunately, and contrary to my habit
of being organized, I cannot turn his honor because it was delivered to us at the
99th minute. But I will try to find it.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What is it?
Hon. Hashem Tamir: Second, I'm looking.
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's supposed to be in the area of T/590 according to Ashkenazi.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: 590 Is this conversational correspondence regarding 47AK?
Attorney Bar Oz: It's in the area.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Yes, a report.
Attorney Bar-Oz: 582 And that's why I didn't want to investigate today, but it's
T/582.
Hon. H.S. Brody: 582, all right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Look, I'm presenting this to you, earlier you said that you
unusually entered the Telegram software, when you write this report, what material
are you making it from, based on what material? This was done on December 10, 2018.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Do you have the copy before you?
Hon. Barak Nevo: No.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I'll let you.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: This is checking Telegram groups.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Only I will say for the record that we do not have, checking the
social groups run by 47AK Roy Ashkenazi Barcode 2731.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. From what material do you do this analysis?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: As I said before Yoni, most of the times it was from
things that were on the server, it is not written here unfortunately I cannot
commit unequivocally, the times I entered but.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I don't unequivocally commit to her name?
A: When I entered Telegram or it from the server, I do.
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right.
A: I do guarantee that the times.
Hon. H.S. Brody: You say, to the best of your recollection, there were many
documents that you looked at from the server, that's what you're saying.
A: Most documents.
Hon. H.S. Brody: For the most part.
A: Very few times, if I went in at all, I can't guarantee what happened here
because I didn't write.
Hon. H.S. Brody: That's what you're saying out of caution actually.
A: Of course because I don't.
Attorney Bar-Oz: But this evidence is not from the server, you are accessing
Telegram Live here, aren't you?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: I'm saying here that's what it says, no, it says here
that I entered Telegram.
Q: For Telegram software.
A: But I didn't write, but I can't guarantee if it was Telegram physically or from
the server to what they downloaded which was Telegram.
Q: Good. Look, you also explain, "I got into a bot [an AI computer program that
creates a voice call or response]."
Hon. H.S. Brody: It's you.
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: So here it says.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Already from the exhibit itself reading?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes.
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: From the report, so here it says specifically for
Tallgrass Bot I entered.
Q: What is artificial intelligence?
A: It's something that is received with the help of a computer, it's not like a
person is there and doing, I mean if I go into that Telegrass bot and they ask me
is there a question? It's not a person asking me and I explain at the lowest level.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It's the bot actually, it's the bot.
THE WITNESS, SERGEANT MAJOR. BENYAMIN: Yes, at that level. But he asks me what is
artificial intelligence? So I explain at the lowest level.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No. Good.
(Pause in recording).
Hon. H.S. Brody: Resumption of discussion after a pause forced upon us following a
power outage, continues. Continued cross-examination of Shoshan Binyamin. Please,
yes. We were in T/582.
Attorney Bar-Oz: That's right, we talked about an action report examining the
social groups run by Roy Ashkenazi, the report is in front of you, yes?
THE WITNESS, SERGEANT MAJOR-BENYAMIN: Yes, yes.
Q: Great. And you said you didn't know if it was.
A: I don't remember.
Q: I don't remember if it was digital material sitting on the server or if you went
live on the phone.
A: Ahh.
Q: Look, I want to speculate, I guess if you printed the materials it would
probably be from a computer because you can't print materials that are on Telegram
from a mobile phone, you only do some export on a computer, on a desktop computer,
right?
A: Yes.
(Speaking in the background).
Q: What? No problem you can present to the judges, for sure.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What is it?
ATTORNEY HADAD: What are you interrogating him about?
Hon. H.S. Brody: We thank you.
THE WITNESS, Maj. Benjamin: Yes, about that, apparently it was on the computer, not
that it couldn't be printed.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes.
A: From a phone.
Q: Wait, wait, I have another hypothesis. My other hypothesis is that you entered
Telegram and not the server because when you do access Telegram through the server,
that is, for existing materials, you write the folder, the path, after all, you
have everything arranged in folders on the forensic server, when was it
transferred? Let's say there's the famous ABS 1011 Ofir Ben Shalom from 10/11, as
soon as the agent signs an agreement until Medina gives you access to the user and
Ofir downloads all the content. For example, if I compare it to Action Report 2268
called Action Report Checking an admin community folder located in a folder called
No Duplicates, which I also have on the hard disk and you refer exactly to the
detachment, you say "I went through the folder called Admin Community, is in a
folder without duplicates, belongs to the Green Bear folder", that's actually the
path on the forensic server, Right?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. So if I put the 2 hypotheses together I can think it makes sense that
language goes into Telegram itself and not some other material, right?
A: Again I say I don't remember, if I went into Tallgrass itself I would say, I
don't remember, maybe yes, maybe not, most of the times, no, I don't have a way
like.
Q: How do we know now? Do the judges need to know whether to accept it or not? If
it is material.
A: That I did it. What do you mean? I did that, that's exactly what the report
says, I did see the things marked in the report.
Q: In this particular case of Ashkenazi, yes, but if there are other reports that
you don't write down where it explicitly comes from, aren't we based on what are we
relying on? I don't know where do you take the stuff from? How many have it been? 5
years?
A: I rely on the action reports I actually did back then.
Q: But you tell me today that you don't know what the source is, you're on the
stand now, they want to submit material through you, you don't know what the source
is, you don't know if you even went to Telegram when it's live and wrote things
down, you don't know whether you took from some server.
A: I said.
Q: Do you understand the problem?
A: I said that most of the times I was for being careful here, I could also say 'I
didn't go in', I don't remember, most of the times were through the server, again I
have no way.
Hon. H.S. Brody: He repeats it.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay.
Hon. H.S. Brody: He can't tell you specifically.
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: For reasons of caution, I say that most of them.
Attorney Bar-Oz: So let's summarize this point that you assess the source of the
material relative to this particular report, you don't remember from where.
A: Specific to the report, yes.
Q: And we're not sure where this stuff comes from, right?
A: Again there is no security, this is material that I have seen what is no
security? How I approached him there is no security.
Q: Where does it come from? We have no way of knowing.
A: How I approached him.
Q: Okay. Good. By the way, you write artificial intelligence.
A: Yes.
Q: Look, to the best of my understanding, the technological level is meager.
A: Yes.
Q: A bot is like a robot it's a command.
Speaker: Don't say bot.
Attorney Bar Oz: As I say bot. Right? Artificial intelligence.
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: That's it, simple as that.
Recorder: Still running, running.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Except for the recording, these are power outages.
Attorney Bar Oz: Now there is no air conditioner.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: I felt before, I didn't say anything.
Attorney Bar Oz: This bot is like a robot it gets a command 0 or 1, if 0 then it
goes here, like you go to Zara's website if you are a man or a woman? Over 18?
There's no artificial intelligence here, there's no knowledge that you feed a lot
of data into and through which you can create something new like this GPT chat,
yes, it's artificial intelligence, is there any artificial intelligence in this
bot?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: And to the best of my understanding, a bot is based on
some kind of data inference or information that goes into it and as a result that
bot was built.
Q: Well, I know it differently that it acts like a robot, so called, if you press 0
it goes to this option and 1 to this option. This is the only time I've seen the
words artificial intelligence in this dossier simply, is it something that has been
passed on to you in briefings that there is artificial intelligence here or is it
your head augmentation?
A: No, a bot is built as an inference of something that does not go into the bot
put 0, 1 and make guesses it goes 0 because it feels like it or 1 because it feels
like it.
Q: Well, I get it. I disagree with you on this, but okay.
A: Your right.
Q: If that's what you think, fine. By the way, we'll just talk about this report
later, but if I look at 2731, you're in here.
Hon. S. Brody: 27?
Attorney Bar-Oz: The same evidence all the time.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Okay.
Attorney Bar Oz: 2731 It's also a drum, there's a drum here, my friend referred
there. 512?
Adv. Haddad: 582.
Adv. Bar Oz: 582. Thank you. Here I will write down also. So basically in T/582 you
want to check which groups Roy Ashkenazi manages.
THE WITNESS, SERGEANT MAJOR. Benjamin: Yes.
Q: That you think is 47AK.
A: Yes.
Q: Basically you check the groups that 47AK manages, not Roy Ashkenazi.
A: That's right.
Q: That's some assumption you make that it's Ashkenazi. All right. Now, is it
actually all the groups run by Roy Ashkenazi?
A: That's what I saw at that moment.
Q: Okay. Let's go over the groups for a moment. The Puff Games, the Puff Games team
have criminal offenses? Is there a dangerous drug trade, a brokerage for dangerous
drug trafficking?
A: What's in the puff games?
Q: Yes.
A: This is messages relating to games of scavenger hunt and publication of a card
with a secret code.
Q: Okay. Next group.
A: Exactly what I saw was what I wrote.
Q: Great, right, I agree with you. Natural parties, nature parties On the face of
it, according to the title, there is a dangerous drug trade there, a brokerage?
A: I didn't get in, as you can see there's an application to join, I didn't get
into this group.
Q: Didn't they approve you later?
A: No.
Q: Have you checked?
A: I didn't get into that group.
Q: Okay. According to the title, but there's nothing here centered on the
trafficking of dangerous drugs, right? It sounds like parties held in nature.
A: As far as I'm concerned, everything about Tallgrass is drug-related, for natural
reasons I couldn't get in, I didn't go in.
Q: When you say 'everything related to Tallgrass is related to drugs', there is a
difference between a group where the topic of discourse is indeed related to
cannabis, but for that matter there are other groups here that call it on the way
to licensing and you write "the members of the group accompany other people on
their way to get medical approval for cannabis consumption", that's 8 on page 2.
A: I saw.
Q: Is it related to illegal cannabis-related activity?
A: It has to do with documenting social groups that 47AK is responsible for.
Q: Great. I know that, I've read the headline. Now we're already, listen, even in
the trial we passed the initial stage, we're talking about Telegrass on the merits
and you're writing here a report that Roy Ashkenazi if he's 47AK he's Defendant 4.
A: Yes.
Q: This is something significant, you can know what groups he managed, so I ask you
if on the way to a license, which is an open group that you can enter without
joining and accompany other people on the way to get a medical certificate, I ask
you, is there something illegal here? Is there anything of a violation of the law
here? Or is it a legitimate escort of people who want to receive cannabis
legitimately in the State of Israel?
A: I don't know legitimate or not, I've documented groups as is.
Q: As is.
A: It's the groups, that's what I documented.
Q: What was the goal, for example?
Attorney Rom: If he hadn't documented, you'd have asked him, 'Why didn't you
document?'
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: "Why didn't you document?"
Attorney Bar-Oz: It's very nice that he documented.
ATTORNEY ROM: Okay, so what?
Attorney Bar-Oz: I ask him on his merits.
ATTORNEY ROM: The criticism?
Attorney Bar-Oz: The criticism is like this.
ATTORNEY ROM: That he would understand to simply answer.
Attorney Bar-Oz: I'll explain it to him.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: Is there anything preventing us from reviewing at the same time?
Attorney Bar-Oz: It was presented to the judges, wasn't it?
Hon. Hashem Tamir: No, just this list.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Please, please. No problem. This specific has no problem.
Hon. H.S. Tamir: All right.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Now while the judges are reviewing, I'll also tell you something
else, when you export to a group on Telegrass from a printing computer, can you
know who the admin is?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: I don't remember if I exported or took screenshots?
Q: I'm telling you that you can't only know in export if you log in to the program
itself, so it's an indication that you've entered Telegram Live.
A: And again I say, I didn't deny it, I said I don't remember.
Q: Okay. I'm not mad at you.
A: No, neither do I, just don't. An indication, an indication, I really don't
remember.
Q: Okay. Look, let's look at another group, a group of animal lovers.
A: Yes.
Q: Yes, is there any indication of illegal activity here?
A: I don't know, I need to join, I didn't go in.
Q: Okay. Telegram mothers?
A: Ditto.
Q: Okay. Hand 2 trade doesn't come in, but I'm telling you it's 2nd hand products
that are not drugs.
A: I have no idea, I wasn't inside.
Q: Okay. The music industry?
A: Same.
Q: Media industry? This is exactly where you mentioned in the media industry, read.
A: "You can enter the group, you don't need to join."
Q: What is it? No, but what's there? Is there some kind of solicitation of drug
trafficking there? Cannabis mediation, something like that?
A: I wrote what I saw, again it's documentation of the branches.
Q: I understand that in the media industry let's say you wrote, "There are movies
that have nothing to do with drugs, for example Fox Butcher," what is that?
Catching the foxes?
A: Something like that, but it's not drug-related.
Q: Excellent and most of the films belong to Nati Media from checking the web Nati
Media has a channel on Telegram that it uploads videos and series, so basically
it's a group that sees videos and series, yes? Next, 8 we said on the way to
licensing, 9 channel are waiting for license holder verification, let's dwell for a
moment on this point.
A: Please.
Q: You couldn't get into the group, could you?
A: True.
Q: Okay. At Telegrass there were those who have a license, I ask you, to receive
from the State of Israel from the pharmacy from Super-Pharm Grass.
A: Good.
Q: But did they get into groups at Tallgrass anyway?
A: I don't know.
Q: Don't you know? You investigated the case for a year and a half.
A: And I don't know how to answer that.
Q: Now look, first I asked me and my friend, where's the criticism? I say, I said
it too, Fleisiger was your commander, right?
A: That's right.
Q: All your search of the content was oriented towards the orientation that
Tallgrass is a criminal organization and you need to find as much incriminating
evidence of criminal offenses as possible, try to expand the types of drugs, the
circle of users and you did not do a test on the merits, an examination on the
merits would show you that this is a network community united around the cannabis
issue in order to bring about legalization and accessibility of cannabis to the
public and you did not check all these positive things, The good, legal ones and
there were plenty of Battlegrass.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I mean, maybe to say, what defense counsel says, if I understood
correctly, that maybe there was no balance, there was some purpose and there was no
balance to check whether there were additional or other central goals?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: I say as a general rule, not only in this case, in all
the cases I do, I also mention whether there is exonerating evidence.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Also evidence?
Hon. Barak Nevo: If there is what?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: Exonerating. If there is something that allegedly.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Right, yes.
A: I mention that as well.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Look, on the face of it, Ashkenazi, according to your report, all
the groups he manages have nothing to do with criminal activity, it's just social
things, parties, games, motherhood, cooking, you know it's a little strange to me.
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: Half of the groups I didn't go in.
Q: But that's what Ashkenazi did, there were no other groups he managed,
incriminating groups, groups I don't know what?
A: That's what Ashkenazi did about this report, what I saw I documented, what I
couldn't get in I didn't document.
Q: Good.
A: We are talking per this report.
Q: I'm what I learned from this report and I'm not saying that Ashkenazi ran it,
but that 47AK ran it.
A: Okay.
Q: I don't know who it is. But what I'm saying is that I don't see anything here,
even though it looks bad at first glance, I don't see anything here that
incriminates or promotes an incriminating thesis or supports the claim that it's a
criminal organization or that there was illegal activity in Telegrass, on the
contrary, it shows me that there was extensive legal activity there.
A: What's the question?
Q: What do you say about that? Is that true what I'm saying?
A: That I document everything, if you say it's legal, okay, I'm still documenting.
Q: No, point me out a place that's illegal, if you have?
A: Of these things?
Q: Yes.
A: I half the groups couldn't get in.
Q: At the title level.
A: At the title level what? Because it rewrites 2nd hand trade groups so decide to
sell there.
Q: That's me telling you, trust me, we'll bring evidence of that.
(Talking together).
Second hand.
A: I'm just saying, I'm just saying her name? Do they sell sofas there? I don't
know, maybe yes, maybe not, I couldn't get into all the groups, I can't answer that
for you.
Q: Well, okay. Look
A: Excuse me, ma'am, I didn't hear what you asked, if you asked me?
Hon. Barak Nevo: No, no, I didn't ask you. I told him.
Attorney Bar-Oz: In the previous example I gave you regarding the path barcode
2268, where I told you you passed, you don't need to see it, I'm already moving on,
this is just an example, "I went through a folder called Community of Managers that
is inside a duplicate free folder that belongs to the Green Bear folder" and then
you write down the findings. Ok?
THE WITNESS, SERGEANT MAJOR-BENYAMIN: Okay.
Q: There were a lot of them, a lot even.
A: Okay.
Q: Now, all the materials that are actually before the hack I can assume that it's
basically all materials from the agent, some he transferred himself, some through
logging into his user, this assumption relies on the fact that except for 2 mobile
phones of other files that you took all the digital evidence was produced after the
hack, after the suspects' phones and computers were seized, right?
A: I'll point out again to your first part that I took it from the police server so
tell you where it came from?
Q: No, I'm not asking you where.
A: No, you said it came from the agent, I don't know how to tell you, I took it
from the server.
Q: Don't you know the source of the material that reached the server?
A: I want to assume, I didn't ask, I didn't ask where it came from? I documented, I
documented it by folders, this.
Q: Lily.
A: You can ask, you can ask the command, Amir Lavon, Arik Benjamin, Ran Fleisiger.
Q: Go try to ask Amir Lavon something we'll see if he answers you, it will come out
like this. He testified here for many whole years.
Hon. Barak Nevo: Enough, enough, enough, it's unnecessary.
Attorney Bar-Oz: But I, look, you I hold from you as an investigator, not just one
who carries out tasks, you are an intelligent investigator, we heard your testimony
last time, I don't say it disrespectfully, in all seriousness.
THE WITNESS, SERGEANT MAJOR-BENYAMIN: Okay.
Q: You were involved here in the case from the first minute, you know the source of
the materials of the digital evidence, it's not like you have to guess it now you
say 'I didn't inquire', you know you caught phones and computers in the hack, there
were 2 before and everything else is from the agent.
A: I can't guarantee that everything you served is from the agent.
Q: Can't, okay, okay. Now, like in Ashkenazi's report that you went into the
computer or the second report that I referred you in which you took from the
server, there were a lot of such actions that you were asked to do a certain search
or in connection with any of the suspects or in connection with a certain subject,
say psychedelics or minors, and that for you was the emphasis on the senior
officials, so called, right?
A: Yes.
Q: By the way.
A: Who I was responsible for.
Q: From your list of exhibits, I saw that you were also responsible for Raz
Cronenberg.
A: That's right.
Q: About Duck Avi.
A: That's right.
Q: Right?
A: That's right.
Q: I mean, you classified him as a senior, you?
A: You.
Q: Yes.
A: I didn't classify him, but he was classified as senior.
Q: There are a lot of actions on the list of exhibits even in the top 10, I looked
at them a bit because they are at the beginning, I see that you guys bothered to
send the agent to meet Raz Cronenberg, right?
A: Okay. Like OK, yes like.
Q: By the way, Raz Cronenberg, let's dedicate one word to him, he was in Telegrass
for a long time?
A: I don't remember, I remember him being in Tallgrass.
Q: What was his role?
A: Time. Programmer.
Q: And he was also involved in the theme of the games and events and things like
that?
A: To the best of my recollection and again it's net memory because I can't, I
don't remember unequivocally, but yes to the best of my recollection he had like
some connection to games as well, but again it's a net memory.
Q: You guys worked a lot on a group called Yellow Rubber Duck, remember that?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this group related to the subject of programmers?
A: This group is mainly related to Raz Cronenberg.
Q: Raz Cronenberg.
A: Mostly.
Q: Okay. And among other things, you came to serve them in Germany through the
programmers, right?
A: Okay.
Q: That would be correct to say.
A: What's the question?
Q: Now, would it be correct to say that Raz Cronenberg, according to you, was a
significant part of the organization?
A: Raz Cronenberg was a part, he had a big part in the organization, he was very
active.
Q: Yes. Okay, so we said that Raz Cronenberg was a significant part of the
organization and was active in the organization, right, Shoshan?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And he was arrested like everyone else in the outbreak, cooperated in the
investigations, incriminated himself, right?
A: I don't remember Cronenberg's one-to-one interrogations.
Q: Just so you know that in the opinion of the State Prosecutor's Office it is not
a criminal organization, it is important for you to know that, really, the State
Prosecutor's Office deleted its part of the criminal organization.
A: Okay.
Q: Surprise you?
A: And still he was a part that I was responsible for.
Q: I agree with you.
A: And he was significantly active in Telegrass.
Q: That's right. That we think it's not a criminal organization at all. On.
Attorney Haddad: As part of a plea bargain, we were taken down.
Attorney Bar-Oz: What difference does it make? There is one factual truth. Good.
(Speaking in the background).
Hon. Barak Nevo: Quiet.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Okay. So basically before the hack beyond the agent, most of the
actions that you as a cyber investigator, as a skilled computer researcher, had
this issue of action reports that you extract materials mainly from the agent in a
certain orientation, right?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: Mostly from the server.
Q: Yes. OK, no matter where. Now, there's a lot of digital material, we got a hard
disk with 4 and a half terabytes scanned something like that, lots of material.
A: Okay.
Q: You downloaded group content and we also saw that some of the groups had nothing
to do with trade and there was a lot of nonsense in the communities, you saw it
with your own eyes, just 'hello' talk, smileys, emojis and things like that, right?
In all the teams wherever they are in Telgrass?
A. Hey, you ask me again to see what I remember.
Q: Yes.
A: There were also smileys, they did emoji too, yes.
Q: Now, I imagine you didn't sit down when you came from a focus to, say, a certain
suspect or a certain subject and you don't read from A to Z all the thousands of
pages of these correspondences, I imagine you're searching in search terms, right?
A: If that's what I did, it's written in an action report.
Q: That's right, I'm not just saying.
A: So if that's what I did written in an action report, I don't know, you're
relying on memory with me again.
Q: So I ask you.
A: I don't remember, if I did search words written in an action report, if I went
through one by one it was also written in an action report.
Q: Lily, there are some reports that you don't write, that's the problem, for
example what we started with also of 47AK that you write "Telegram program I got
into the bot" and I don't know where you got into it, there are things you don't
write down, there are also reports that you say "I searched by words" and you don't
write down the words themselves, I can see it as a result of you printing and there
are words in bold.
A: That I write appendices.
Q: Let's say 'minors, children' things like that.
A: Okay.
Q: Right?
A: That's right, I'm not hiding.
Q: Great.
A: There were things I did by search words, unequivocally.
Q: Great. Now in general, I have no problem with you now reviewing all the exhibits
that the prosecution brought in your case that you saw as part of the refresher.
A: Okay.
Q: And I'd love to see one report where you write the search words, what was the
search methodology?
A: I don't remember, I really don't remember, but like you said, like you said, I
don't hide it everything was appendices and that according to search words it's
even, if I'm not mistaken most of the times the search word is also highlighted in
the appendices.
Q: That's right, in part. CurrentYo I want to know who gave you these search words?
Was it enlarging your head, meaning you get a task from Amir Lavon or Maren
Fleisiger, 'Lily, I want to see high management how many times user Trip says
minors' or are you given the issue to tie user Trip to minors and you yourself
think about the search words, how did it work?
A: Search words have been defined for me.
Q: Have you been defined? Who was it that defined?
A: One of the 3, it's from the command.
Q: One of the 3.
A: I don't know.
Q: Amir, Ran?
A: Oh Eric.
Q: Eric. Ok. All right. Now, how can I today conduct a retrospective review of the
actions you took if you did not write down your methodology in real time? The
actual words you were looking for? Some cases I see highlighted, some not.
A: I have tried in most of my action reports to note literally every pip in my
activity, I have nothing to tell you about it, most not most of all my action
reports I try to be as focused as I can.
Q: Got it. Look, on Monday, after I can read things more thoroughly, we'll go down
to more granular resolutions in the reports, but I'm telling you.
A: Yes.
Q: From what I saw, your entire search was mission-oriented to locate things in
negative quotation marks and you didn't even bother to look for things in positive
quotation marks that are legal, legitimate and with that you painted the file in
certain colors, now, today 5 or 6 years later some of the material does not exist
and in part it is not possible to do the reverse review because we do not have the
methodology, What do you think about it?
A: And I will answer what I answered earlier.
Q: Yes.
A: Even when there are things that are credited with what is called and contradict
or contradict what it is and I encounter them and see it, I point it out.
Q: Look, you also said that to Amos during his interrogation, you know?
A: Yes, I guess that's true.
Q. You told him.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I mean, you're basically saying that you weren't goal-oriented,
you tried to check the facts, if there really were things that were, for example,
let's say they contribute or all sorts of things like that, or there's social talk,
would you write it down too?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: I say it's incomprehensible, it's a bit problematic
because yes they told me what to do, yes I was led according to what I was told to
do.
Hon. H.S. Brody: No, of course.
A: But yes, even if I saw things that are ostensibly called acquittal, I would
state it unequivocally.
Attorney Bar Oz: Look.
ATTORNEY ROM: Perhaps you will give an example.
Hon. H.S. Brody: What, for example?
Attorney Bar Oz: Come sit next to me.
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: He wants to give an example, unequivocally.
Q: Look.
A: Please.
Hon. H.S. Brody: As far as you are concerned, have you approached this openly?
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: Yes, I am committed, what is it? I don't know the
person.
Attorney Bar-Oz: What was the word Madam said?
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right, I ask.
THE WITNESS, Maj. Benjamin: Did I approach it openly?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Openness.
A. I said I didn't have anything personal with the person, of course I did.
Hon. S. Brody: Look, no, of course not, I'm saying there's some uniqueness here
about this issue as well, it's not every day you get next to a file like this,
right? It needs to be studied and it needs to be examined more deeply.
THE WITNESS, SERGEANT MAJOR. Benjamin: That's right.
Hon. H.S. Brody: It's not one of the usual cases you're dealing with.
A: That's right, it's a big bag.
Attorney Bar Oz: The greatest.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Both big and different.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Yes. Look, say, you also say that to Silver. You interrogated him
in Israel in 5 investigations and pretty much everything else in Playsiger.
THE WITNESS, SERGEANT MAJOR-BENYAMIN: Okay.
Q: 5 or 6.
A: Maybe more, me, yes, but 5 or 6, okay.
Q: Maybe more, you know what? I don't, most of the interrogations really he was
silent, right?
A: Yes, as far as I remember and what I did.
Q. There were things he had to make some kind of comment, he didn't hold back.
A: Okay.
Q: Okay. Interrogation 8 of 27.8.19 marked 3630 You also tell him, what you tell
him that you said here, you tell him and I read from page 11, line 36, they made
you Sasson Benjamin in the transcription but you are Shoshan, there is no Sasson in
cyber.
A: For now.
Q: "No one said that Amos is not a good person, no one said that Amos does not
secretly give and invest, no one takes the good things from you," later says Linoy
Samon Page 39, line 31 "We didn't say that the organization didn't help patients,
separate, we said that the organization did other activities besides patients,"
meaning that you sit with Linoy during the interrogation and you tell him, "We
don't ignore the good things you did and that you helped patients and things like
that."
(Pause in recording).
A: Was I with Linoy during the interrogation by the way, or did I leave that she
was? I don't.
Q: Yes, yes, yes.
A: Okay.
Q: Here, it's the same investigation.
A: Okay, I may have gone out too.
Q: Okay.
A: I also indicate this whether I went in or out.
Q: Will we finish for today, are you or did you get guidance for it from one of the
Big 3 Arik, Amir or Ran?
A: Yes.
Q: Look in action reports for good things? For example, donations to the needy, a
donation bot, helping patients, donating 4 kilos of cannabis a month, is there an
action report by Shoshan Binyamin or anyone else that lists things in positive
quotation marks? I didn't come across.
A: Again I don't call it, I don't call it positive or not, I'm saying that if I
came across such things during the search I mentioned.
Hon. H.S. Brody: He answered that.
Attorney Bar-Oz: No problem.
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: I am a lily.
Q: But here you're looking for a targeted search, after that we'll see more
examples on Monday.
A: Okay.
Q: Specific things, like I said minors, children.
A: And if there were good things about it.
Q: No, no, I'm asking you.
A: I would still point out.
Q: Do you remember? Did you also do a refresher, an action report on the things I
call the good ones? Doesn't Stalgrass profit from them, that they don't
characterize a criminal organization, that they actually support our thesis that
it's an online community for cannabis accessibility and legalization?
A: I don't remember to tell you.
Q: I don't remember.
A: I don't remember to tell you, of course.
Q: I'm telling you there isn't, there's no such thing.
A: I don't remember.
Q: Not that you checked or that others did.
A: I don't remember to tell you.
Q: As Ran told me, 'If you look into the issue of nonprofits and donations, it's
only to strengthen the organization's money laundering issue.'
A. What Ran said is what Ren said, I have no idea telling you what Ren said.
Q: Okay.
A: I don't know.
Q: Well, I've gotten to the point.
Hon. H.S. Brody: All right. Next date on Monday did we say?
Attorney Bar-Oz: Monday morning.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Outgoing 2.
ATTORNEY ROM: Not on the morning, 9.
The witness, Maj. Benjamin: 1.5.
Adv. Bar Oz: 9, 9.
A: 1.5.
Hon. H.S. Brody: Thank you. I write the usual time with all the handcuffs.
Hon. Hashem Tamir: Stop the recording, but resume it in a second.
Hon. H.S. Brody: I am writing the usual time.
(Pause in recording).
<#8#>
Decision
The discussion of the recording is over. The next evidentiary hearing will be held
on May 1, 23 at 8:45 a.m. Recording services will be ordered, and the defendants
present in the courtroom are told the obligation to appear.

An announcement can be made today Friday, April 27, 2023 in the presence of those
present.

Leora Brody, Judge

Lieutenant, Avd

Michal Barak-Nevo, Judge

Michael Tamir, Judge

Hon. H.S. Brody: We are closing the meeting, thank you very much.
Attorney Bar-Oz: Thank you very much.

Hon. Hashem Tamir: Close.

-Recording ended-

Recorded by Rebecca Binyamin

7700

9548