The scandals about alleged financial malfeasance at the Prime Minister's Residence refuse to die down. A few days ago, the State Attorney's Office rejected a court proposal that would close the case if Mrs. Sara Netanyahu returned the hundreds of thousands of shekels she allegedly spent illegally on ordering meals despite the residence employing an in-house cook.
Anyone familiar with criminal law knows that it is unusual for a court to offer a solution that would close a case. The court undoubtedly did so here only after hearing both sides and studying the legal and other difficulties of the case.
Still, even though the prosecution is aware of that, it is insisting on a conviction for Mrs. Netanyahu. The cynics among us will say that that's a good thing because it will prove that all accused are equal before the law and are treated the same.
As someone who is well-versed in the case, and without getting into an analysis of all the facts and evidence (which still present a number of difficulties), I will say that the case against Mrs. Netanyahu is inherently flawed and presents the prosecution with an obstacle it can't clear. The court saw that clearly.
The indictment accuses Mrs. Netanyahu of ordering meals at a time when the residence employed a cook, in violation of regulations that forbade her from doing so, and justifying it by pretending that no in-house cook was available. But the regulation was put in place by officials in the Justice Ministry and the Prime Minister's Office who had no authority to do so. They allowed themselves to make the rule without even bothering to inform the Knesset Finance Committee – the entity that is authorized to decide on expenditures in the Prime Minister's Residence.
Anyone who reads the Knesset committee's decisions on expenses at the Prime Minister's Residence will find that they include no limitation whatsoever about ordering meals. So the regulation barring it was enacted with no authority and is therefore void. If there is no regulation, it cannot be violated and it is not legally binding. In other words, Mrs. Netanyahu was allowed to order meals from an outside supplier.
The prosecution is familiar with the problem of the lack of authority to make the regulation but argues that even if it is void, Mrs. Netanyahu still should not have falsified reports to accountants, claiming that the residence had no cooks, so they would approve the budget for meals.
That argument is also incorrect. Years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the crime of fraudulent receipt of goods is not a defense for the judgment of an official acting without authority, as in the case before us. The alleged false reports to accountants do not comprise fraudulent receipt of goods so there is no crime here at all. Indeed, the prosecution would do well to comply with the court's proposal and order the closure of the criminal case immediately.
