A-G asks High Court to overturn immunity of Haim Katz

At the time, it appeared that both coalition MKs and even many opposition MKs supported Katz's immunity out of fears that they might be next.

By YONAH JEREMY BOB
Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit and Likud MK Haim Katz (photo credit: ARIK BENDER/MAARIV)
Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit and Likud MK Haim Katz
(photo credit: ARIK BENDER/MAARIV)
Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit joined forces on Wednesday with a petition by an NGO that asked the High Court of Justice to overturn the immunity from indictment the Knesset gave to Likud MK Haim Katz in February.
Mandelblit basically said that the basis for the immunity which the Knesset gave Katz was unconstitutional and essentially manufactured without any real legal basis based on political considerations. The petition was filed by the Movement for the Quality of Government in Israel.
In February, an ad hoc Knesset committee granted Katz immunity from prosecution in one of only a few examples of such immunity being granted since 2005.
Absent being overturned by the High Court of Justice, Katz will never have to defend his conduct.
According to the indictment against Katz, he violated conflict of interest principles on several occasions in his economic dealings with Equital Ltd.’s Motti Ben-Ari, and covered it up to obtain illegal economic gains for the two of them.
The indictment stated that Katz loudly supported a 2010 reform to the country’s insolvency laws, which was specifically targeted at helping Ben-Ari and his company, in which Katz himself also had heavy investments. This would mean that Katz helped advance legislation to personally benefit himself and his primary financial adviser and close friend.
Katz also allegedly acquired shares based on insider information that he received from Ben-Ari – sometimes in multiple visits per week – in a manner that violates standards for Knesset members, accumulating unlawful wealth.
In addition, it was alleged that Katz did not meet the duty of disclosure regarding his connections with Ben-Ari, both in formal disclosures to authorities and in a hearing he held in the Knesset as a minister, in which Ben-Ari was called to testify.
Katz admits all or virtually all of the actions attributed to him.
Essentially, his defense before the immunity committee came down to the following points: 1) the law he helped pass was good for the public and not targeted only at helping Ben-Ari; 2) he forgot to disclose his connection to Ben-Ari to authorities and his fellow Knesset members as an oversight, but not intentionally; 3) working to pass the law represented acting in his public servant capacity – which should give him immunity.
At the time, it appeared that both coalition MKs and even many opposition MKs supported Katz’s immunity out of fears that they might be next.
If the law that was passed was good for the public and also pushed by a special interest, but he received no formal bribe from the special interest, what harm was done, they seemed to argue.
More importantly for Knesset members, as former justice minister Ayelet Shaked and others said: almost every Knesset law has some special interest group campaigning for it who contacts a Knesset MK.
Neither Shaked nor many other Knesset members wanted to have to reveal every special interest group they spoke to about every law they support or initiate.
Those supporting Katz said that the only relevant question was whether the law was good for the country or not.
If the law was arguably good for the country – Katz’s lawyer said that “the law protects the interests of small investors, protecting them from manipulations that may be initiated by controlling shareholders in companies” – then there should be no prosecution.
From this perspective, Katz merely committed an ethical (non-criminal) error of omitting information about his relationship with Ben-Ari, and maybe even that Knesset members might not want to have to reveal.
But Mandelblit argued then and doubled-down now that the cold hard facts are that Katz had a deep, highly specific and systematic financial relationship with Ben-Ari.
This is not a case of any ideological special interest group contacting any MK to support a law because they think it will improve the country.
The picture presented in the indictment shows large corporate money essentially buying the support of a minister and committee chairman. The minister then presented the large money man as a neutral expert, who then swayed the committee members to support a financial scheme to benefit Ben-Ari and Katz.
If settler groups tell Shaked they will support her campaign if she supports conservative judges or tries to thwart laws evicting settlers from the West Bank – that is how politics works and she need not worry to name all of her allies. The same would be true for left-wing groups supporting a Meretz MK.
But if the primary relationship and motivation for a law is corruption and unfair financial gain against the rules that everyone else has to play by – all by cozying up and financially benefiting a public servant – that is at minimum fraud, plain and simple.
If Katz had spoken to Ben-Ari once or twice about the law and they only knew each other as well as Katz knows dozens of other special interest groups, then his narrative of an accidental omission would be strong.
But Mandelblit said that the vast volume of interactions, meetings, coordination and financial entanglements between Katz and Ben-Ari made it crystal clear that he omitted Ben-Ari on purpose so as not to rock the boat.
The attorney-general argued that if Katz had told his fellow Knesset members about the full extent of their relationship, his fellow Knesset MKs would not have viewed Ben-Ari as a neutral expert, may not have let Katz run the debate and may not have entertained the law at all.


Related Tags
Haim Katz