Arrest (Shutterstock photo, Flash 90/ Yossi Zamir)
Today (Sunday) the Supreme Court allowed the publication of the names of Roni and Aviad Mizrahi, who are suspected of omitting revenues of at least 20 million shekels from the activities of the guarding and security companies “AL Security” and “ML Holdings”, which Owned by Aviad Mizrahi.
According to the suspicion, although the companies are registered in Aviad Mizrahi’s name, the father and son manage them jointly. As part of the joint activity of the Jerusalem and South Investigations assessor and the Jerusalem 2 assessor, the suspicion arose that there are significant differences between the income of these companies and their reports to the Income Tax. Following the suspicions, an open investigation was opened, searches were conducted and, through court orders, documents were seized at the home of the respondents and from their representative before the tax authorities.
More in-
The findings of the investigation so far raise the suspicion that the father and son took a variety of illegitimate actions to reduce their tax liability. Among other things, it is suspected that the father and son used two different accounting systems. In one system they issued invoices for the amount that was actually paid and issued them to customers, and in a second system they issued invoices for reduced amounts and reported them to the tax authorities. Also, there is a suspicion that some of the invoices issued to customers were not reported to the tax authorities at all.
About three weeks ago, the two were brought before the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court, which released them under restrictive conditions and rejected their request to impose a publication ban on their names and identifying details until an indictment is filed. The suspects appealed to the District Court against the decision of the Magistrate’s Court, but their appeal was rejected on the grounds that the applicants did not prove that damage to their reputation and among their clientele beyond the usual damage accompanying the publication of the name of a criminal suspect is likely to occur.
Moreover, it was determined that the claimed damage does not outweigh the public interest in publication, taking into account the interest of clients who request publication of the suspicions against them. Now, the Supreme Court has rejected their request to appeal the district’s decision, on the grounds that it is not a fundamental legal issue or an injustice or a miscarriage of justice, which are grounds for a “third incarnation” appeal.
Comments to the article(0):
Your response has been received and will be published subject to the system policy.
Thanks.
for a new comment
Your response was not sent due to a communication problem, please try again.
Return to comment