Former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit testified Tuesday that a representative of Ari Harow, a former aide to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, brought recordings of the prime minister’s conversations with publisher Arnon Mozes to then-state attorney Shai Nitzan, describing how the material prompted the preliminary inquiry that became Case 2000.
During his third day as a defense witness in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial, Mandelblit said Nitzan informed him of the approach and the prospect of negotiations for Harow to become a state witness. He said he reviewed a transcript and listened to two recordings before internal discussions led to a decision to begin a preliminary inquiry.
The testimony formed part of a broader challenge by Netanyahu’s lawyer, Amit Hadad, to how the investigations began, what Mandelblit authorized and whether investigators disclosed information that could have affected his decisions.
Case 2000 concerns conversations about a possible exchange of more favorable coverage for Netanyahu in Yediot Aharonot for steps against its rival, Israel Hayom. Netanyahu faces a charge of fraud and breach of trust and denies wrongdoing.
Mandelblit said the recordings raised suspicions of bribery on both sides, but that he had deliberated over their significance because, he said, Netanyahu had initiated them.
“I was very undecided about the meaning of this recording,” he said, explaining that this raised questions about whether Netanyahu wanted the proposed arrangement to materialize. That uncertainty did not eliminate the suspicion of a criminal offense, he added.
Hadad asked whether written records had been kept of the discussions about a possible state-witness agreement with Harow. Mandelblit agreed that such discussions needed to be documented.
Hadad argues Mandelblit’s testimony contradicted prosecution’s account
Toward the end of the hearing, Hadad argued that Mandelblit’s testimony contradicted the prosecution’s account of whether the recordings were provided during negotiations for Harow to become a state witness. He asked to see the records of those discussions before questioning Mandelblit further on the issue.
Hadad also raised testimony concerning Harow’s phone, arguing that police had accessed the recordings before the material was formally passed to prosecutors. Mandelblit said he had not known about that account and that, if police had listened without his prior approval, he should have been informed.
Mandelblit also described the development of Case 1000, distinguishing preliminary checks of allegations from the later decision to open a full criminal investigation.
The initial information concerned several subjects, including alleged irregularities in Likud primaries, election funding, overseas travel expenses and benefits from businessmen. He said he approved checks where there was enough substance to warrant examination, but the information had not initially justified a full investigation.
Investigators were supposed to return with their findings so he could decide whether to proceed. The election-related suspicions were disproved, he said, while other matters warranted further examination.
The decision to open a criminal investigation in Case 1000, which concerns allegations that Netanyahu received expensive gifts from wealthy businessmen, came after testimony from Hadas Klein, an aide to businessman Arnon Milchan. Her account, Mandelblit said, raised suspicion of a regular supply of gifts on demand rather than occasional presents.
Prosecutors allege Netanyahu conflict of interest regarding expensive gifts
Prosecutors allege that Netanyahu received expensive gifts from wealthy businessmen and acted on Milchan’s behalf while in a conflict of interest. Netanyahu maintains that the gifts were exchanged between friends and denies wrongdoing.
The hearing also produced a dispute over Hadad’s attempt to question Mandelblit about alleged improper considerations behind the indictment.
Hadad raised a remark attributed to Mandelblit asking prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh whether she preferred to prosecute a case that would save democracy or become a judge in a dictatorship.
Tirosh objected, arguing that even if he had made the remark, it would not establish that those views motivated the investigation. She maintained that the prosecution’s decisions were based on evidence.
After consulting, the judges allowed Hadad to establish a factual basis for his questions. They said improper considerations could support an argument that the prosecution was fundamentally unfair, and that limited questioning could be permitted once that basis was established. They reserved their decision on the prosecution’s objection.
Separately, Hadad challenged the warning given to Netanyahu before questioning in Case 4000, pointing to wording referring to benefits and breach of trust without explicitly mentioning bribery.
Mandelblit said Case 4000 involved suspected bribery but could not recall whether he had explicitly approved using that term in the warning. He described the wording shown to him as convoluted and acknowledged that it more closely suited breach of trust, while maintaining that it could encompass other offenses. Hadad disputed that interpretation.
Netanyahu’s trial began in May 2020. He faces fraud and breach of trust charges in all three cases, and bribery in Case 4000, in which prosecutors allege he advanced regulatory measures benefiting Bezeq in exchange for intervention in Walla’s coverage. He denies all wrongdoing.