Search

Israeli police: Netanyahu committed bribery

Israeli police say they’ve built up enough evidence against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Case 4000, also known as the “Walla-Bezeq affair,” to recommend bribery charges.

By World Israel News Staff

On Sunday, the Israeli police recommended charging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bribery, fraud and breach of trust in the corruption probe known as Case 4000, or the “Walla-Bezeq Affair.” Police also recommended charging the prime minister’s wife Sarah on the same charges.

Police say they’ve also built a case against the other parties in the bribery investigation. They recommend charging Shaul Elovitch, who then owned Bezeq Group, Israel’s leading telecommunications service provider, and his wife Iris with bribery, disruption of investigative and legal proceedings and offenses under the Prohibition on Money Laundering Law.

“Against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, a sufficient evidentiary infrastructure [for trial] has been established over offenses of bribery, fraud and breach of trust and fraudulently obtaining an item under aggravated circumstances,” the police and Israel’s Security Services said.

A number of other people were charged in the affair as well, which centered around an agreement between Netanyahu and Elovitch in which Netanyahu, who was then minister of communications, would grant regulatory favors to Bezeq in return for positive coverage of the Netanyahu family on the Walla! News site, which is owned by Bezeq.

Read  Netanyahu aide suspected of leaking classified information to sabotage hostage deal

Netanyahu immediately blasted the recommendations, painting them as a hit job against his family.

“The police’s recommendations regarding me and my wife are not surprising, nor is the transparent timing of their publication,” he said.

“These recommendations were set and leaked before the investigations even began. Police recommendations have no legal status. Only recently, the competent authorities rejected police recommendations against a series of public figures.

“I am sure that even in this case the competent authorities, after examining the matter, will reach the same conclusion – that there was nothing because there is nothing.”