Tax Official Acquitted of Corruption Charges After 7 Years, Reinstated

A former senior official in Israel's Tax Authority, Gil Avrahamoff, has been fully acquitted of charges of fraud and breach of trust after a seven-and-a-half-year legal battle. Avrahamoff, who served as deputy tax supervisor for Jerusalem 2, was accused of maintaining improper ties with a restaurant owner whose tax case fell under his purview. The prosecution alleged that Avrahamoff was a regular customer at the restaurant, receiving preferential treatment including meals, special hospitality, and gifts, while simultaneously handling the establishment's tax matters, thus creating a conflict of interest.

Five years after his trial began, Jerusalem Magistrate's Court ruled in Avrahamoff's favor, criticizing the prosecution and the restaurant owner, who testified as a state witness. The court distinguished between the appearance of impropriety and actual criminal offenses, stating that a conflict of interest requires proof of tangible wrongdoing and an aggravating factor, not just a relationship.

Following his acquittal, Avrahamoff, who was suspended from his position when the investigation started 7.5 years ago, requested to return to his job. The Civil Service Commission approved his request last week, announcing that his suspension would be lifted and he would be compensated for the period of his absence.

Avrahamoff's role involved significant authority over tax assessments and collection procedures for businesses in the Jerusalem vicinity. The investigation was initiated based on a complaint by the restaurant owner, who was facing a substantial tax assessment. The owner claimed a long-standing personal relationship with Avrahamoff, involving VIP treatment and free food and drinks, even though the restaurant did not offer delivery services. Initially, suspicions of bribery and extortion were also investigated.

The indictment, filed in 2021, focused on two counts of breach of trust: handling the restaurant's tax case while in a conflict of interest and receiving benefits that created an expectation of favorable treatment. The court, however, found that the prosecution failed to prove Avrahamoff actively handled the restaurant's tax assessment, received undue benefits, or had a close personal relationship that constituted a conflict of interest. The judge noted inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, presenting conflicting narratives of either a personal relationship or a system of fear and extortion.

The court also addressed the distinction between preferential service and criminal benefit, concluding that since Avrahamoff paid for the services, even if some were exceptional, it did not constitute a criminal benefit. Furthermore, the judge stated that even if a conflict of interest were proven, the prosecution needed to demonstrate an aggravating factor, which was not established. Avrahamoff's defense attorneys stated that their client was a dedicated public servant who was a victim of a false accusation and that he acted with integrity.