Key Topics in This Area
Choose the relevant topic for focused information.
Bribery
What is the offense of bribery?
Bribery offenses are set out in Article Five of Chapter Nine of the Penal Law. Section 290 provides that a public employee who accepts a bribe in return for an act connected to his position is liable to up to 10 years' imprisonment or a heavy fine. Section 291 provides that the giver of the bribe is liable to up to 7 years' imprisonment. The law regards the bribe taker more severely, since it is he who breaches the public trust placed in his hands.
What is considered a "bribe"?
The definition is intentionally broad. Section 293 of the law provides that it makes no difference whether the bribe was money, something of monetary value, a service, or another benefit; whether it was given in return for an act or an omission; whether it was given in return for an action that the public servant was required to perform in any event; whether it was given in advance or after the fact; and whether it was given directly or through another person. Anyone who mediated the bribe, under Section 295, is subject to the same penalty as the giver of the bribe. The practical meaning: even a "gift" that appears innocent may be considered a bribe if it was given in connection with the public role.
How are bribery cases investigated?
Bribery cases are usually investigated by the national investigation units, sometimes for many months before the suspect is even aware that an investigation is underway. The typical tools: wiretaps, state witnesses, surveillance, and seizure of documents. When the suspect is summoned for questioning, the investigators already have a well-formed evidentiary file before them, and the suspect faces it alone. Precisely for this reason, no statement should be given before receiving legal advice.
The consequences beyond imprisonment
A bribery conviction carries moral turpitude, and means disqualification from public office, harm to professional licenses, and forfeiture of the benefits received. Alongside the criminal proceeding, ransom proceedings, tax proceedings, and disciplinary proceedings are often also conducted.
Legal representation in bribery cases
Israel Arama, formerly of the Tel Aviv District Attorney’s Office, represents suspects and defendants in corruption and bribery offenses. Familiarity with how these cases are built from the inside, including work with state witnesses and wiretap evidence, makes it possible to identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case at an early stage. Contact us for an initial consultation with no obligation before providing a statement.
Fraud and breach of trust
What is the offense?
Section 284 of the Penal Law states: "A public servant who, in the performance of his duty, commits an act of fraud or breach of trust that harms the public, even if the act would not have constituted an offense had it been committed against an individual, is liable to: imprisonment for three years."
Three unique characteristics of this offense: it applies only to public servants; it makes it possible to prosecute even for conduct that is not an offense when committed by a private person; and there is no need to prove actual financial damage, harm to public trust is sufficient.
Elements of the offense
The conduct element , an act of fraud or breach of trust. The law leaves the courts broad room for interpretation, which has been used over the years to expand the boundaries of the offense.
The circumstances , the act was committed within the framework of performing the public role, or in direct connection to it.
The result , harm to the public. There is no need for tangible financial damage , harm to public trust in government institutions is sufficient for a conviction.
Who is considered a "public servant"?
The definition is broad, ranging from junior clerks to senior elected officials. Prime ministers, ministers, heads of authorities, officers, police investigators, and state employees are all exposed to this offense.
Key case law
In the Aryeh Deri matter (DNP 1397/03), the Supreme Court addressed the nature of the offense and its boundaries. In the Shlomo Benizri matter (CrimA 5083/08), it was held that the core of the offense is harm to the integrity of the public service. The rule today: breach of trust exists in any case of a clear conflict of interest, when the public servant prefers his personal interest over the public interest.
Examples from case law
A police investigator who maintained an intimate relationship with a suspect , an investigator who took a statement and conducted a conversation of an intimate nature with the suspect, met with her in his private vehicle after the interrogation, and the next day continued to interrogate her without reporting it. He was convicted of breach of trust. His sentence: four months' imprisonment to be served through community service and a fine.
A senior public servant who advanced tenders in favor of his associates , preferred persons with a personal connection to him over more qualified bidders. He was convicted of fraud and breach of trust offenses. His sentence: one and a half years of actual imprisonment and a significant fine.
Fraud and breach of trust versus bribery
Both offenses belong to the field of integrity, but are materially different: bribery (Section 290) , focuses on receiving a benefit in return for an act related to the role. Fraud and breach of trust , a "catch-all offense" with broad and vague boundaries, gives the courts interpretive flexibility beyond specific offenses such as theft, forgery, fraud, and bribery.
The trend toward stricter case law
In recent years, a stricter approach by the courts toward these offenses has been evident. Serious cases with broad public consequences, sentences close to the maximum. Medium-level cases, short imprisonment, sometimes community service. Minor cases, a fine and a suspended sentence. But the rule is clear: the courts view these offenses as harm to the order of government that must not be treated lightly.
Possible lines of defense
Absence of mens rea , the defendant was not aware of the conflict of interest and did not act with intent to breach public trust. Absence of harm to the public , the acts, even in circumstances of a conflict of interest, did not cause actual harm. Action within the framework of legitimate administrative discretion , this is not a case of exceeding authority. The success of the defense depends on the specific circumstances of each case.
Legal representation in fraud and breach of trust cases
Fraud and breach of trust cases are among the most complex, combining criminal law, public administration, extensive evidence, and sometimes media coverage. Anyone being investigated on suspicion of this offense cannot afford to arrive for questioning without representation. Israel Arama, formerly of the Tel Aviv District Attorney's Office, represents suspects and defendants in white-collar and fraud offenses. Contact us for an initial consultation with no obligation.
What is the offense of bribery?
Bribery offenses are set out in Article Five of Chapter Nine of the Penal Law. Section 290 provides that a public employee who accepts a bribe in return for an act connected to his position is liable to up to 10 years' imprisonment or a heavy fine. Section 291 provides that the giver of the bribe is liable to up to 7 years' imprisonment. The law regards the bribe taker more severely, since it is he who breaches the public trust placed in his hands.
What is the offense?
Section 284 of the Penal Law states: "A public servant who, in the performance of his duty, commits an act of fraud or breach of trust that harms the public, even if the act would not have constituted an offense had it been committed against an individual, is liable to: imprisonment for three years. " Three unique characteristics of this offense: it applies only to public servants; it makes it possible to prosecute even for conduct that is not an offense when committed by a private person; and there is no need to prove actual financial damage, harm to public trust is sufficient.
Key case law — what is important to know?
In the Aryeh Deri matter (DNP 1397/03), the Supreme Court addressed the nature of the offense and its boundaries. In the Shlomo Benizri matter (CrimA 5083/08), it was held that the core of the offense is harm to the integrity of the public service. The rule today: breach of trust exists in any case of a clear conflict of interest, when the public servant prefers his personal interest over the public interest.
Possible lines of defense — what is important to know?
Absence of mens rea , the defendant was not aware of the conflict of interest and did not act with intent to breach public trust. Absence of harm to the public , the acts, even in circumstances of a conflict of interest, did not cause actual harm. Action within the framework of legitimate administrative discretion , this is not a case of exceeding authority. The success of the defense depends on the specific circumstances of each case.
This information is for initial orientation about the service and contact process. It is not individual legal advice.
Initial call No obligation