“Sex in exchange for appointment” case: The investigation file against Efi Naveh and Judge Etty Kreif will be closed

by

The prosecution has decided to close the cases against the former chairman of the Bar Association, Adv. Efi Naveh, and against Justice of the Magistrate Etty Kreif, as part of the “sex for appointments” case.
After hearing all the arguments raised by the defense attorneys at the hearing and after several hearings, the Deputy Attorney General, Shlomo (Momi) Lemberger, decided, after deliberation, that there is no reasonable chance of conviction in this case, and that despite difficult factual findings from the investigation. Criminal – The case should be shelved.
What decided the case against the indictment was the way in which the main evidence in the case was obtained – in an alleged illegal hacking of Naveh’s mobile phones. The prosecution thought that if there was a basis to file an indictment for bribery, there is a reasonable chance that a court would have ruled that the evidence was admissible. But in a less serious breach of trust offense, the balance of considerations has changed.

Lemberger stated that “an analysis of the totality of the circumstances and the correspondence between the two could lead to a determination that there was also a corrupt and self-interested motive in the existence of the intimate relationship.” However, he noted that “after examining all the allegations, it cannot be said that this is a necessary interpretation and conclusion. In all these circumstances it was found that there is a reasonable doubt as to the question of the motive for the intimate relationship, and therefore the conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence For the offense of bribery, at the level required in a criminal trial. “

Deputy State Attorney for Criminal Affairs, Adv

In December 2019, the then State Attorney, Adv. Shai Nitzan, decided to consider the prosecution of Adv. Naveh on suspicion of bribery and fraud and breach of trust, and the prosecution of Judge Kreif on suspicion of bribery and destruction of sight. In the absence of an incumbent State Attorney, the hearing was adjourned, and in the end, the Minister of Justice imposed the authority of the Ombudsman in this matter on the Deputy State Attorney.

The decision to charge Naveh and Kreif with the bribery offense, subject to a hearing, was based on an examination of the timeline and timing of the intimate meeting at the heart of Kreif’s appointment process. The evidence allegedly showed that Kreif needed Naveh’s help, and asked him time and time again to promote her appointment, in parallel and in combination with an intimate dialogue and “keeping the fire” between them. That is, it turned out that the intimate contact axis and the appointment promotion axis were intertwined.

.Source