The fourth day of the testimony of State Witness Shlomo (Momo) Pilber, in a trial against former Prime Minister and Opposition Leader Benjamin Netanyahu, began this morning (Wednesday) in the Jerusalem District Court. Attorneys from the prosecution and the defense are present in the courtroom. Bezeq did not appear for today’s hearing.
Today, Pilber was questioned about the method of carrying out the reform in the communications market and about changing the method at Bezeq’s request, why he sent documents to Bezeq from his private Gmail, and whether he was in direct contact with other communications companies.
Yesterday (Tuesday), the court allowed the prosecution’s request to cross-examine state witness Pilber, after gaps arose between his version in the police and his version in court. The court did not exceptionally declare Pilber a hostile witness, although by law, the way to cross-examine is after determining that the witness is hostile.
Netanyahu’s reprimand call on Haran to come
Pilbar testified that he received a call on Saturday night from Netanyahu regarding Haran Levot, the deputy director of economics at the Ministry of Communications, after he sent Levot to negotiate with the CEO of Bezeq about the price of telephony, and it exploded. The following were those who sought to condition the Bezeq-yes merger on conditions that would advance the wholesale market reform.
“The prime minister called me one Saturday night. He asked me who this Haran was. Why he was there. It was unclear sentences. In general he told me ‘fire him.’ I told him it’s not easy to fire. I’m dealing with it. We did not talk about it. The context, “Pilber told the court today. To the police, Pilber said of the call: “I get screams … I got a phone call in the middle of sleep. How does Netanyahu even know who Haran is? How does he know he should be fired?”.
Pilber explained that “everyone who has worked with Netanyahu is familiar with the conversations that come in the evening, after his family members or people who apply pressure. In order to get out of duty, he (Netanyahu) makes a ‘treated’ appearance.”
Why did Pilber use private Gmail to transfer files to Bezeq?
Pilber was asked about transferring files to Bezeq in his private Gmail, as opposed to the email at the Ministry of Communications. The plaintiff, Adv. Yehudit Tirosh, slapped him that the use was intended to hide the connection with Bezeq. Pilber replied that it was technically easy to transfer files in this way. “There the files were opened. That was the technique. I’m not saying that is why. I did not deny myself, but there were technical considerations as well. ”
Pilber testified that Hot CEO also has a direct connection. “We did not transfer documents. We exchanged views and information on what was going to happen. “Judge Rebecca Friedman-Feldman asked to clarify:” Did you do something similar in Hot? Is that also where you segregate the people in the office? “
To this, Pilber replied – “The meetings were in private. The people in the office knew in retrospect. At Bezeq, I told the attorney general what Bezeq wanted, but I did not tell how and when I spoke.”
The claimed benefit: a change in the method of carrying out the reform in the communications market
The hearing began on the issue of Pilber, in his role as director general of the Ministry of Communications, in the wholesale market reform – in collaboration with Bezeq and other companies in landline telephony. Because the method that Bezeq requested was considered and rejected in the past by the Ministry of Communications.
According to the original method, Bezeq’s competing companies were given the option of connecting themselves to Bezeq’s infrastructure for a fee, and then providing wired telephony services directly to customers. According to the method adopted by Pilber at the end of 2015, the competing companies were not given the opportunity to connect themselves to the infrastructure owned by Bezeq. Instead, it was determined that Bezeq’s competing companies would be able to work with the resale method: resale: call directly with customers for the purpose of providing a landline telephony service, but this service will actually be provided by Bezeq while taking into account it.
According to the lawsuit, this method limited Bezeq’s competitors in their marketing ability. In addition, it was argued that when a dispute arose between the Ministry of Communications and Bezeq regarding pricing, Pilber agreed with Elovich on postponing the implementation of the reform for another year, which continued to hold a monopolistic position in this market. The delay in the implementation of the reform by Pilber was of enormous economic value to Bezeq – according to the indictment.
The prosecutor asked Pilber about his dealings with Bezeq: “In the end, your judgment is bound and skewed in favor of Bezeq, since you can not reach an explosion with them, and this affects your judgment,” she said, adding: Agree with him on the track, because that is something that is important to them. “
Pilber: “The issue of telephony has become dramatic at Bezeq”
Pilber confirmed things. “Everything you said is true. The issue of telephony has become dramatic for Bezeq and the Economics Department. From the first moment, from data tests, I did not understand the weight of this component. I wanted to reach an agreement and not harm competition. The issue of telephony – the main part was To reach an agreement. “
The plaintiff read in the courtroom from the testimony of the police of Adi Kopolowitz, who was an economist in the Economics Division of the Ministry of Communications. In his testimony, the economist explained the position of the Economics Department on the solution proposed by Pilber: “We as the Economics Department said why we think it is unreasonable and incorrect, and we do not know how to justify and defend such a thing, and it goes beyond what we thought was reasonable to do. .
Pilber testified that he delayed the implementation of the reform of landline telephony: “I want to reach consensual prices without reaching an explosion. I do not force them. I am trying to reach an agreement. I saw it (telephony) as an explosive issue. For both office workers and Bezeq. On this issue. “
Judge Moshe Baram asked: “Is there a substantive justification? You are not acting as a regulator should act.”
Pilber: “I acted less according to formalism but more practice to reach solutions. I had to give a hammer in the head to get going. But no. I did not know what he would do to me in front of my minister. I try to reach understandings.”
The testimony of Pilber, who was the director general of the Ministry of Communications, Netanyahu’s chief of staff and a confidant, is considered central in the 4000 case, along with the testimony of state witness Nir Hefetz and former Walla director general Ilan Yeshua. Pilber is supposed to substantiate the bribery offense in the 4000 case, by acting, according to the prosecution, to do good with Bezeq at Netanyahu’s request. His testimony deals with the handling of Bezeq’s affairs as part of his role as director general of the Ministry of Communications.
*** Presumption of innocence: Benjamin Netanyahu, Shaul and Iris Elowitz were not convicted, and they have presumption of innocence.