Ex-AG Mandelblit Questioned on Investigation Scope in Case 1000
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit stated he was unaware of investigators expanding the scope of Case 1000 beyond approved limits. Prime Minister Netanyahu's defense team presented documents suggesting police questioned witnesses about gifts from businessmen James Packer and Arnon Milchan after concluding inquiries into apartment use. The defense argues this was an unauthorized expansion, while prosecutors claim it fell under a broader authorization for investigating benefits. The dispute could affect the admissibility of evidence and the validity of charges.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former AG Mandelblit claims ignorance of investigators expanding Case 1000's scope.
- Netanyahu's defense claims police exceeded approved inquiry into luxury apartment use.
- Investigators allegedly questioned witnesses about gifts after concluding apartment use inquiry.
- Defense argues this was an unauthorized expansion, impacting evidence admissibility.
- Prosecutors maintain the expanded questioning fell under a broader benefits investigation authorization.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit stated "not as far as I know" when asked if he was aware of an expansion in the investigation into Case 1000, which concerns allegations of gifts to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's family. Mandelblit's testimony came as Prime Minister Netanyahu's defense team presented documents suggesting police investigators exceeded the scope of their approved inquiry in 2016.
During the court hearing, attorney Amit Haddad, representing Netanyahu, presented evidence indicating that investigators, after concluding their questioning of former driver and assistant Yonatan Chason regarding the use of businessman James Packer's luxury apartment, proceeded to ask about gifts from Packer and businessman Arnon Milchan to the Netanyahu family. Haddad argued this constituted a significant expansion of the investigation beyond the initial authorization, which was focused on Yair Netanyahu's use of the apartment.
Mandelblit was questioned about whether he had been informed of this broader line of questioning. He responded with "not as far as I know," implying he was unaware of the investigators' actions. The defense team also presented similar questioning patterns in the interrogation of Hadas Klein, Milchan and Packer's personal assistant, suggesting a deliberate strategy by investigators to broaden the inquiry without explicit approval.
A prosecutor, attorney Keren, objected to the defense's presentation, arguing that Mandelblit had previously authorized investigations into significant benefits and gifts. She contended that the defense was presenting a partial picture and that the initial authorization for investigating benefits was broad. Judge Moshe Bar-Am acknowledged the dispute, stating "there is a dispute."
The core of the dispute lies in whether the inquiry into gifts was an inherent part of a broader authorization for investigating benefits, as the prosecution claims, or an unauthorized expansion by the police, as the defense argues. The defense contends that if investigators used a narrow permit for apartment use as a pretext for a wider search for gifts, it could impact the admissibility of key testimonies and potentially lead to the dismissal of charges in the gifts case.
Mentioned
