Netanyahu Trial: Defense Claims Police Exceeded Authority in Gifts Investigation

During the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, defense attorney Amit Haddad presented a document from September 2016, purportedly showing that former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit had authorized investigators to take statements from Hadas Klein and Jonathan Hasson solely regarding Yair Netanyahu's use of a luxury apartment owned by businessman James Packer. Haddad argued that police investigators exceeded this authorization by questioning Klein and Hasson about gifts given to the Netanyahu family, which became a central focus of Case 1000. Mandelblit, testifying in court, had difficulty recalling the exact sequence of events but emphasized that Klein's testimony significantly altered the perception of suspicions and advanced the investigation. He stated that it was Klein's testimony, not the initial inquiry into the hotel apartment, that changed the picture.

The defense contends that police investigators improperly expanded their probe beyond the scope of the initial approval, using the apartment inquiry as a pretext to investigate gifts without proper authorization. Haddad presented the 2016 document as evidence that Mandelblit's approval was specifically limited to the use of Packer's apartment by Yair Netanyahu. The defense aims to establish a legal argument that the gifts investigation was unlawfully broadened beyond the approved parameters.

Mandelblit, however, did not fully confirm Haddad's account of events, stating he could not precisely recall the order or how matters were presented to him. He maintained that his general approval covered the examination of significant benefits from businessmen and that Klein's testimony provided the crucial evidence that shifted the investigation's focus. The former Attorney General also addressed statements attributed to him in a conversation with journalist Dana Weiss regarding Klein's importance, stating he did not recall making those specific remarks in the presented manner.

The core dispute revolves around the point at which a preliminary police inquiry transformed into a criminal investigation focused on gifts and benefits. The defense seeks to prove that investigators acted without authority by expanding their probe into new areas under the guise of a limited apartment inquiry. Mandelblit, conversely, insists that Klein's testimony was the turning point and that no separate authorization is legally required for every factual development that naturally arises from an approved investigation topic.