Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s defense pressed former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit on Sunday over whether investigators exceeded his authorization, as Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned how police were supposed to distinguish between steps they could have taken independently and those requiring further approval.
The sixth day of Mandelblit’s testimony at the Jerusalem District Court focused on a wiretap of Netanyahu confidant Natan Eshel that Mandelblit ordered stopped, and on the early inquiries that developed into the criminal cases against the prime minister.
Defense lawyer Amit Hadad argued that investigators gathered evidence through unauthorized actions and then used it to secure permission to investigate further. Mandelblit maintained that he had approved examining defined subjects, while acknowledging that the Eshel wiretap should have been brought to him beforehand.
Under Basic Law: The Government, opening a criminal investigation into a sitting prime minister requires the attorney-general’s consent. Hadad’s questioning has sought to establish exactly what Mandelblit approved, when he approved it, and whether investigators stayed within those limits.
Mandelblit, who authorized the investigations and later approved the indictment, was called as a defense witness. Netanyahu’s trial began in May 2020 and concerns three cases involving alleged gifts and dealings with media owners. He denies wrongdoing in all three.
Mandelblit angry about Eshel wiretap
On Sunday, Mandelblit said he had been angered to discover that police were tapping Eshel, a close Netanyahu associate involved in his personal and political affairs. Investigators had obtained a court warrant, but Mandelblit said they had not sought his approval.
“When I discovered it had been done, I ordered it stopped immediately,” he said.
Hadad argued that Netanyahu was the operation’s real target, pointing to references in the warrant to Eshel’s contact with the principal suspect, described as “a senior elected official.”
Prosecutor Keren Tzviran disputed that interpretation. She said the warrant concerned suspicions against Eshel himself, and that references to Netanyahu did not make every suspected offense listed in it an allegation against the prime minister.
Mandelblit said he had not been specifically told that numerous conversations between Eshel and Netanyahu had been intercepted. He said his concern was the sensitivity of listening so closely to someone so involved in the prime minister’s affairs.
Investigations into alleged gifts may have gone beyond A-G orders
The questioning then returned to the development of Case 1000, which concerns expensive gifts Netanyahu allegedly received from businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer, and actions he allegedly took to benefit Milchan. Netanyahu faces fraud and breach-of-trust charges in that case.
Hadad challenged whether permission to examine accommodation associated with Packer at the Royal Beach Hotel extended to questioning Milchan’s assistant, Hadas Klein, and driver Yonatan Hasson about gifts to Netanyahu and his wife.
Mandelblit said he had not known the details of that questioning. He maintained, however, that he had not stopped the broader examination of suspicions that Netanyahu received substantial benefits from business people.
Bar-Am pressed him on how investigators were meant to understand those boundaries, asking whether the permission amounted to blanket approval to examine Netanyahu’s affairs.
Mandelblit rejected that characterization. The subject itself set the limits, he said, and investigators were expected to return to him as significant suspicions developed. They did not need approval for every individual action.
Bar-Am questioned whether investigators needed more concrete instructions to prevent them from mistakenly doing something they were not permitted to do. Mandelblit said regular meetings were intended to provide that oversight.
He also distinguished the early information about cigars and champagne from the evidence that later persuaded him to authorize a full investigation. What changed his assessment, he said, was information suggesting a regular supply of gifts and the use of code names, which he viewed as indicating concealment.
Mandelblit said the wording police proposed for Netanyahu’s first questioning had angered him because he believed it pushed Case 1000 toward bribery, while he viewed the suspicions as closer to breach-of-trust issues.
The distinction is critical to the charges ultimately filed. Netanyahu faces fraud and breach-of-trust allegations in both Case 1000 and Case 2000, which concerns discussions with Yediot Aharonot publisher Arnon Mozes about favorable coverage in exchange for steps against rival newspaper Israel Hayom.
The bribery charge is in Case 4000, alongside fraud and breach of trust. Prosecutors allege that Netanyahu advanced regulatory measures benefiting telecommunications company Bezeq in exchange for intervention in the Walla news website’s coverage.