Ex-AG Mandelblit Criticizes Police Conduct in Netanyahu Trial
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in the Benjamin Netanyahu trial, where a dispute arose over the scope of police investigations. Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, questioned Mandelblit about whether the police were authorized to investigate money laundering allegations against the Prime Minister. Mandelblit stated his approvals were for investigative topics, not specific offenses, while Haddad argued the police exceeded their mandate. The defense contends that unauthorized investigations could invalidate evidence and charges.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former AG Mandelblit testified in the Netanyahu trial regarding police investigation scope.
- Netanyahu's lawyer questioned Mandelblit on authorization for money laundering charges.
- Mandelblit stated approvals were for investigative topics, not specific offenses.
- The defense claims police exceeded authorized investigation parameters.
- Disputed police actions could impact evidence admissibility and charges.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified in the Netanyahu trial, where a police document presented revealed an investigation into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on suspicion of bribery, fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering. Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, questioned Mandelblit on whether he had authorized investigations into these specific charges, particularly money laundering. Mandelblit stated that his approvals were for investigative topics, not specific offense clauses, a distinction the prosecution sought to emphasize.
Haddad presented a police request for a wiretap warrant that explicitly listed investigations into Netanyahu for bribery, fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering. He pressed Mandelblit on whether these severe charges were included in his authorizations. The prosecution intervened, and Mandelblit was temporarily removed from the courtroom to allow the parties to discuss the legal dispute. During his absence, the prosecutor clarified that an investigation into bribery concerning Arnon Mozes, publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, was approved as part of Case 2000.
Haddad reiterated that his question focused on money laundering, not the bribery allegations related to Mozes. He argued that the appearance of additional offenses in police documents suggested investigators had expanded the scope of the inquiry beyond authorized parameters. Mandelblit explained that his approvals covered broad investigative topics, such as receiving significant benefits from businessmen, and that related suspicions, like failure to report income, could naturally fall within the scope of an approved investigation.
When confronted with testimony from senior police investigator Koresh Bar-Nor, who called the inclusion of money laundering a "mistake," Mandelblit described it as "worse than a mistake." Haddad responded by calling it "misleading." The defense aims to establish that the police acted without restraint, exceeding the officially approved scope of investigations, which they argue could impact the admissibility of evidence and the validity of the charges.
Mentioned
