גיל נדל משרד עורכי דין

 

Plea bargains that make a difference- an overview of the ruling on a case of smuggled goods

Attorney Gil Nadel

 

Violations of forged importation documents and smuggled goods into Israel, while evading paying import taxes for them are serious offenses, which inflict heavy damages to the Israeli economy, and harm law-abiding importers who pay import taxes as required by law, and who cannot compete with the low prices of importers who evaded paying taxes.

 

And yet, despite all this, in many instances the cases in which these types of violations are discovered are concluded with easy penalties such as a ransom imposed by the Tax Authority (without the case ever coming to court) or public services and a suspended sentence, imposed by the court.

 

Signing a plea bargain with the State usually leads to a significant reduction of the penalty which is imposed by the court on the transgressor in various criminal cases, even in cases of Customs violations. This fact stems in part by the fact that by signing the plea bargains the transgressor cuts back on costly judicial time, both for the courts and the State Attorney, since, in practice, plea bargains make it unnecessary to carry out the proceedings by which the guilt of the transgressor is proven.

 

By law, plea bargains are nothing more than a recommendation to courts and the judge is not obligated to accept them as is, but in practice, courts often tend to approve the plea bargains signed between the transgressor and the State without intervening.

 

A lenient sentence for aiding smuggling:

 

The Magistrates Court of Ashdod has recently accepted a lenient plea bargain between the State and the transgressor who was convicted of aiding the smuggling of goods into Israel. The plea bargain sentenced the transgressor with three months suspended sentence and a fine of NIS 20,000.

 

According to the indictment, the owner of a retail and gift business, by the name of Home Decor, imported containers of clothing accessories and home wares to Israel and allowed for another individual to import other goods within that same shipment under the name of "Home Decor".

 

During a Customs inspection of the containers that arrived in Israel, it was discovered that besides clothing accessories and home wares, there were also impotence pills and diet pills hidden among the merchandise, which were furthermore discovered to be fakes and of a type that were potentially dangerous to the public, without the appropriate license for such and in an attempt to evade paying taxes for the goods.

 

In this case, the State wanted to sentence the transgressor, the owner of Home Decor, a relatively lenient penalty through a plea bargain. The penalty agreed upon by the two parties was three months of suspended sentence and a fine of NIS 20,000.

 

In this instance, the State justified this plea bargain in the fact that the transgressor is not the primary criminal in this case- he is only convicted of aiding another individual in smuggling the goods.

 

In addition, the State claimed that the transgressor fully cooperated in the investigation and helped to locate that other individual.

 

The court accepted the plea bargain as agreed upon.

 

[Criminal file (Ashdod Magistrates Court) 40629-07-12 The State of Israel vs. Muhamed Abadi et al, Judge Alon Rom, verdict of December 6, 2012. Party representatives: on behalf of the State- Attorney Efrat Moyal Kiyanik; on behalf of the transgressor- Attorney Rottenberg].

 

A severe sentence without a plea bargain:

 

For instance in the case ruled in late 2011, a Customs agent who was a shareholder and administrator in a company dealing with Customs brokering, was convicted of aiding the smuggling of containers into the State of Israel via Haifa Port, by reporting to the Customs Authority that those containers were designated for export to Jordan and Israel was just an intermediate station. In order to complete the smuggling, the transgressor presented the Customs Authority with false bills of lading and commercial invoices, including the names of Jordanian importers with whom the transgressor had worked in the past.

 

In this case, the court sentenced the transgressor with a sever penalty of 15 months active imprisonment, six months of suspended sentence and a fine of NIS 50,000. [Criminal file ( Haifa Magistrates Court) 16079-07-09, the State of Israel vs. Suissa, verdict of November 16, 2011, Judge Zair Falah. Party representatives: on behalf of the Customs agent- Attorney S. Fischman; on behalf of the State- an attorney of the legal unit of the Customs and VAT department].

 

Examples of additional cases which ended with a plea bargain:

 

In other such severe cases, in which import taxes worth millions of NIS were detracted from the State treasury, the court was satisfied with accepting penalties of public services and fines, primarily due to the fact that the transgressors arrived at court for the sentencing arguments stage with a plea bargain with the State already in their possession.

 

For instance, about a year ago the court sentenced a penalty of public service and a fine to a transgressor (importer) who had been convicted of evading import taxes at a sum of NIS 2 million [Criminal file (Rishon Le'Zion Magistrates Court) 5016-06 Customs Import Warehouse of Ben Gurion Airport, Lod vs Maadaney Sea Food Atlantic Ltd., verdict of October 6, 2011].

 

In another case from over a year ago, the workers of the Gotex swimwear company were sentenced with public service and a fine in a case which saw over NIS 6 million in import taxes detracted from the State treasury   (Criminal file (Rishon Le'Zion Magistrates Court) 2319/09 the State of Israel- the legal bureau of the Customs and VAT department vs. Gotex Models licensed dealer et al, verdict of July 12, 2011).

 

In another case which saw approximately NIS 750,000 in import taxes detracted from the State treasury, the court, once again, was satisfied with accepting public services and a fine through a plea bargain (Criminal file (Ashdod Magistrates Court) 476-06 Customs Import Warehouse of Ashdod vs. S.A. Halaf Tzafon Ltd. et al, verdict of April 28, 2011).