Ex-AG Mandelblit Explains His Approval of Case 1000 Investigation
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit explained that Hadas Klein's testimony escalated suspicions in Case 1000, prompting a full investigation. He stated that the defense's claims about his approval process differed from his recollection. Mandelblit recalled instructing investigators in 2016 to focus on specific aspects of the case, not minor gifts. The prosecution suggested that other protocol sections offer a fuller context, and judges recommended providing the complete document to the defense.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Former AG Mandelblit says Hadas Klein's testimony led to reasonable suspicion in Case 1000.
- Mandelblit stated that gathering evidence from Milchan and Packer was part of the investigation process.
- Defense counsel claimed Mandelblit's account of approving the 2016 investigation differed from state representations.
- Mandelblit recalled instructing investigators in 2016 to focus on specific issues, not minor gifts.
- The prosecution suggested that other protocol sections provide a complete picture of the investigation's approval.
- Judges recommended providing the full protocol to the defense for Mandelblit's review.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit stated that the testimony of Hadas Klein transformed the initial inquiry into Case 1000 into a reasonable suspicion, leading to a full investigation. He explained that this process also required gathering testimonies from businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer. Mandelblit expressed regret over the case, which involved suspicions of receiving gifts from wealthy individuals, noting that Klein's testimony significantly altered the perceived severity of the suspicions.
Mandelblit's account of approving the investigation in 2016 was challenged by defense counsel, who claimed his version differed from the state's representations. The defense argued that reviewing all the material would reveal their narrative of the truth. Mandelblit maintained that his testimony reflected his recollection, acknowledging potential imprecision regarding specific dates but certainty about the issues involved.
During a July 2016 meeting, Mandelblit reportedly instructed investigators to focus on three specific areas: Case 2000, election irregularities and double financing in 2009, and the "Iceberg" case concerning large gifts to Benjamin Netanyahu. He emphasized that he had not authorized investigations into other matters, deeming them either time-barred or minor, and that the "Iceberg" case lacked sufficient substance at the time to warrant a full investigation, particularly regarding aggravating circumstances.
Mandelblit denied instructing investigators not to execute search warrants without his approval, stating that while central actions required his consent, not every operational detail needed to reach him, as a supervising prosecutor was assigned. The defense countered that in 2016, he had requested approval for all actions. The head of the prosecution team for Case 1000, Alon Gildin, responded that other parts of the protocol would provide a complete picture. The judges suggested providing the full protocol to the defense for Mandelblit's review, to which the prosecution agreed to respond promptly.
