Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's scheduled testimony in Case 4000, involving alleged regulatory favors to Bezeq telecommunications company in exchange for positive coverage on Walla news website, was canceled for Tuesday after his defense team raised concerns in a closed-door chambers discussions with the judges during Tuesday's hearing, citing "state affairs." It was unclear if this was related to recent reports on progress made in talks with Hamas over a hostage deal.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared Monday for his third testimony in Case 4000, focusing on allegations that he granted regulatory benefits to Bezeq's former controlling shareholder Shaul Elovitch, in exchange for favorable coverage on the Walla news website.

The hearing was interrupted when defense lawyer Amit Hadad requested to cancel Tuesday's scheduled testimony. The matter was discussed behind closed doors after prosecutors agreed to handle the request privately, leading to the cancellation. During testimony, Netanyahu rejected allegations about his involvement in media coverage requests. "No one approached them on my behalf," Netanyahu said, referring to requests allegedly made through his associate Zeev Rubinstein to former Walla! CEO Ilan Yeshua and Bezeq owner Elovitch.

"I could have called Elovitch directly, not because of any understanding with him, just as I would call Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken or Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Moses," Netanyahu said. He suggested Rubinstein might have acted either independently or on behalf of Netanyahu's wife, who "was not necessarily, to put it mildly, familiar with campaign nuances."

The defense team announced plans to examine all 315 items constituting alleged requests for coverage. "These charges, forming the basis of bribery allegations, were never presented to me during investigations," Netanyahu told the court. "They have ruined people's lives, harmed my family and an entire country." Netanyahu particularly objected to allegations about his involvement in coverage requests regarding Naftali Bennett, arguing such interference would have contradicted his campaign strategy. "We wanted to differentiate Bennett from Likud, particularly after his statements supporting disobedience regarding settlements," Netanyahu said. "I thought it was terrible then, and even today, calls for refusal to follow orders from right or left are a danger to the state's existence."

The prosecutor team, including senior prosecutors Yehudit Tirosh and Alon Gildin, closely monitored the testimony. When discussing messages allegedly sent to media outlets during the 2013 election campaign, Netanyahu presented evidence of Likud's official messaging strategy, arguing many alleged interference requests would have undermined his campaign's message about establishing a strong national government.

The post Netanyahu trial on hold after PM's cryptic 'state affairs' request appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In dramatic testimony Tuesday in his corruption trial, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to demonstrate that he routinely signs large batches of documents without detailed review, presenting this as evidence he couldn't have knowingly participated in an alleged quid pro quo involving the Walla news site.

"This process undermines the very essence of the [corruption] claim," Netanyahu testified, after showing the court a video he recorded several days earlier of himself signing documents brought by Cabinet Secretary Tzachi Braverman.

Netanyahu is standing trial in three corruption cases. In Case 4000, considered the most serious, prosecutors claim he provided regulatory benefits to Shaul Elovitch, the former owner of Walla's parent company Bezeq, in exchange for favorable coverage on the news site. In Case 2000, he is accused of discussing a legislation deal for favorable coverage with Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes in exchange for weakening its rival newspaper, Israel Hayom. In Case 1000, he faces charges of receiving expensive gifts from wealthy businessmen in exchange for political favors.

On Tuesday, focusing on Case 4000, Netanyahu pointed to regulatory approvals benefiting Bezeq that he signed before his December 2012 dinner with Elovitch, which prosecutors claim initiated their alleged quid pro quo relationship. "Two major regulatory benefits were given to Elovitch that I signed as prime minister, without understanding, without risk, without unusual response, without favorable coverage, before the dinner – without anything," he testified.

Netanyahu emphasized that this was standard procedure: "What I'm describing to you – I would suggest bringing several ministers, and they would all tell you that this is how they sign. It happens in cabinet meetings. It happens in the Knesset when they bring you a package. And it happens in the ministry,y too."

Regarding his broader motivations for media involvement, Netanyahu argued, "I'm here for policy. Not here for personal pleasures. What does that matter? To sit in the chair? What value is there in that? There are more comfortable chairs in the world."

He expressed shock that his media diversity efforts were being criminalized, "Your honors, I was stunned when they asked me about this in investigations – I told them, 'Are you serious? What are you talking about? This? This is in the indictment? The most basic democratic thing? The duty of leaders is to diversify different markets; this is seen as criminal?'"

Netanyahu explained what he thought about the economic market; he thought about the market of opinions. "If there's a free market, you succeed in reaching different results than with one supplier," he said. He emphasized repeatedly that "it's not about a personal matter. It's about an ideological matter."

The post WATCH: Netanyahu fights corruption allegation with unseen video of office routine appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Investigators claim that the clip, one of many recordings being used as evidence in Case 2000 – one of three cases in which Israel's Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit may soon issue formal indictments against the prime minister – shows Netanyahu discussing favorable coverage in Yedioth in exchange for legislation.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

A steady stream of leaks from all three cases have been gifted to the media for the purpose of souring much of Israel's political establishment and public on Netanyahu's otherwise intractable reign as Israel's longest-serving prime minister.

Yet according to a high-profile international legal team that rushed to Netanyahu's defense during recent pre-indictment hearings, Netanyahu's attempts to influence the media are standard practice for politicians and not criminal in nature, even if political favors were granted in return for positive coverage.

Furthermore, if criminal charges are ultimately filed against him for trading such favors for coverage, they argued, it would represent an unimpressive first for any society operating with a free press.

Professor Avi Bell, a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan and the University of San Diego School of Law, and one of the lawyers who submitted the brief challenging the tentative charges against Netanyahu, told JNS that "prosecuting a bribery charge in these cases is a mistake. Pursuing these charges is unprecedented in the democratic world, dangerous to the fabric of Israeli democracy and ill-advised."

The brief, authored by Bell as well as Alan Dershowitz, Nathan Lewin, Richard Heideman and Joseph Tipograph, and presented to Mendelblit and state prosecutors during the pre-indictment hearings by Bell and Lewin, insists that positive media coverage can never constitute a bribe.

"There is no case we can find anywhere in the democratic world where positive coverage has ever been considered a potential 'bribe,'" said Bell.

The brief submitted by Netanyahu's attorneys demonstrates that "media empires … routinely exchange favorable coverage for official acts."

The document presents a litany of examples whereby media moguls such as William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer have implicitly traded positive coverage for political favors that include the altering of government policies and regulations that financially benefited the media owners.

Specifically, the brief references multiple examples negotiated decades apart between Rupert Murdoch, and British premiers Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

Particularly in today's age of polarized media, it is literally the business of outlets to provide positive coverage to those politicians or candidates they like, while providing negative coverage of those politicians they don't. And it is the job of politicians and candidates to secure the best possible coverage they can, while ensuring that their political rivals receive the worst coverage possible.

Politicians consistently lobby media outlets with whatever they have at their disposal to gain improved coverage. They will often provide scoops and otherwise hard-to-get access to reporters with the understanding that coverage will be in their favor. And media outlets are happy to play along, even actively courting such favors. These are simply the often-not-so-pretty operating procedures of a for-profit free press.

Bell told JNS that "if bargains for positive coverage between public officials and media figures can be punished as bribes, then every report about a matter of public interest is potentially the basis of a bribery charge, and every interaction between a journalist and a public official is potentially relevant evidence of a crime."

Furthermore, even the lesser misdemeanor charge of breach of trust may be inappropriate, he said.

"Treating bargaining between public officials and media figures over positive coverage as a criminal transaction is a danger to free speech," Bell said, "whether that transaction is called the crime of bribery or breach of trust. The bribery-related charges – and this includes the claim in Case 2000 that the prime minister committed a 'breach of trust' by failing to react properly to a proposed 'bribe' of positive coverage – go to the very heart of freedom of speech and freedom of the press."

The result of treating media coverage as a bribe, according to Netanyahu's legal team, would be the effective "chilling of free speech," whereby journalists would refrain from publishing specific types of coverage for fear of potential retroactive prosecution.

According to the team's brief, this "chilling effect" has significant precedent in British and American law and has been thoroughly examined by the European Court of Human Rights, which has ruled that this form of self-censorship "works to the detriment of society as a whole."

"All journalists who report on public affairs will have to worry about finding themselves subject to criminal investigations and arrest," Bell noted, adding that in such a scenario "almost all reporting could potentially be considered a bribe."

This, Bell explains, would create an unprecedented reality whereby "police and prosecutors will become the final arbiters of what can be reported, rather than the free press." In scenes that would resemble those common in dictatorial regimes, "prosecutors and police would have an enormous power to play favorites," Bell said, which could be used to "intimidate and silence" political opponents.

"It's a nightmare scenario that fits regimes like Turkey and China, and has always been rejected by democratic states outside Israel," Bell stressed.

Complicating the case for Netanyahu, said Bell, is that Israeli bribery law is "unusually strict."

Bell explained that in most of the democratic world, "a bribe is an illicit payment in exchange for a favorable official act that gives a benefit to the bribe payer." In Israel, he noted, "almost none of that is necessary. If the bribe payer hopes to get a benefit in the future, but doesn't have anything specific in mind, it can still be a bribe."

Furthermore, he added, "there doesn't have to be a benefit to the bribe payer. If the bribe payer gets exactly the same services he or she would have received without the bribe, the criminal law still considers it a bribe."

Bell suggested that the combination of this overly strict interpretation of bribery and positive coverage potentially being classified as bribery was "particularly dangerous."

"Prosecutors could put journalists in jail for seven years as long as they could prove that their coverage helped someone and the judge inferred that the journalist had an expectation of benefiting," said Bell. "And public officials could be convicted any time they delivered an official service of any kind to someone who wrote a nice story about them."

Meanwhile, the requirements for proving or disproving the lesser, misdemeanor charge of breach of trust is very much open to interpretation.

"One of the real problems here," Bell said, "is that – as many Israeli judges have noted – a breach of trust is a crime without a clear definition, so what looks like a breach of trust depends very much on the judge."

Bell noted that "it is possible, of course, for there to be a breach of trust in some other aspect of the cases, if, for example, Netanyahu acted improperly aside from the alleged bargain for positive coverage. But no such allegation appears in the interim charge sheet, so there doesn't seem to be a case of breach of trust in either case 2,000 or 4,000 [in which Netanyahu allegedly struck a deal with another media organization]."

The irony of the cases regarding Netanyahu's attempts to manipulate the media is that the very same investigators and prosecution attempting to hold him accountable may have themselves been manipulating the press, and through it public opinion.

By leaking what should otherwise be legally protected evidence, referendums on Netanyahu's conduct are simultaneously taking place within the offices of the attorney general and state prosecutors, as well as at the ballot box and the Knesset during protracted rounds of parliamentary coalition negotiations.

Yet if the same stringent theories are applied to the prosecution's manipulation of the media as are being applied to Netanyahu's, one could easily argue that the leaks themselves are bribes. Such leaks constitute immeasurable favors to the media outlets who receive them, in the form of readership and ratings, which provide direct monetary benefit to media owners.

"According to the prosecution's theory that helpful news coverage is a bribe, all the leaks are potential bribes," said Bell, "and the only way to know if they are lawful is to haul in all the relevant journalists and investigators, and interrogate them about their motives."

So why aren't the leaks being restricted or even prosecuted? Bell noted that ironically, "Several years ago, legislation was proposed that would have made the illegality of such leaks clear. However, the proposed legislation was controversial for the obvious reason that it would have punished speech and would harm free speech."

This, Bell contended, further illustrated the danger of creating such a broad crime by allowing positive coverage to be considered bribery.

"The lack of prosecutorial attention to the leaks as bribes or to the other media bargains, such as between former MK Eitan Cabel and Mozes in Case 2,000, as bribes shows how dangerous it is to create a crime that can potentially attack everyone, but will in practice only be used against a disfavored few," he said.

Yet Bell doesn't suggest that the leaks be investigated or prosecuted. "I don't think the right response to unfair leaks is to make even more speech subject to criminal penalty," he said.

"It's quite clear that whatever the flaws in politician-media relationships in Israel today, there's nothing that would be as devastating to freedom of speech as giving the police power to inspect the motives of all news coverage that helps or hurts a public figure," said Bell. "The damage to freedom of speech and, more generally, to a free society, would be incalculable."

It appears that the case made by Bell and Netanyahu's international legal team may yet have a significant impact on the charges to be leveled in the coming weeks by the attorney general.

The attorney general is expected to announce whether or not he intends to indict Netanyahu in the coming weeks, possibly during the ongoing coalition negotiating period now led by Netanyahu's challenger, Blue and White leader Benny Gantz.

If charges are dropped or reduced, Netanyahu's chances of remaining in power may improve. Yet the damage to his reputation and tenure as prime minister due to an unprecedented legal process may already be irreversible.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

Alex Traiman is managing director and Jerusalem Bureau Chief of Jewish News Syndicate.

The post The unintended consequences of a Netanyahu indictment appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Channel 13 News reported that Ofer Golan and Jonatan Urich were both recently questioned and their phones have been confiscated.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

It says Golan hired a van in August to park outside the home of Shlomo Filber, blaring a message, "Be a man – stop lying about Netanyahu."

Filber, the former Communications Ministry director general, agreed to testify against Netanyahu in Case 4,000, which centers on potentially illicit dealings and conflict of interest involving Israeli telecom corporation Bezeq and the Walla news website, which Bezeq owns.

In a statement on Monday, police and justice officials said witness harassment is extremely serious.

Urich reportedly told police the van was a campaign stunt and Netanyahu was not involved.

The post Netanyahu aides questioned in possible witness harassment appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The pretrial hearings, scheduled to be held over four days, will allow him to make his case against indictment to Attorney-General Avichai Mendelblit in three graft investigations.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

A final decision by the attorney general on whether to file charges is expected by the end of 2019.

Netanyahu, who denies any wrongdoing, faces no legal requirement to leave government if indicted, as long as he remains prime minister.

But his aura of political invincibility has been clouded by his failure to win a clear victory in parliamentary elections in April and last month, after a decade in office as head of the right-wing Likud party.

"Today, we will present all the evidence that everyone knows and some new evidence," Amit Hadad, one of Netanyahu's attorneys, told reporters outside Mendelblit's office. "We believe that all three cases will be dropped after the hearings."

Mendelblit announced in February that he intends to charge Netanyahu with bribery, fraud and breach and trust. Netanyahu has said he is the victim of a political witch-hunt spearheaded by left-wing opponents and journalists.

The investigations, dubbed Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000, have revolved around gifts of champagne and cigars that Netanyahu has acknowledged receiving from millionaire friends, purported attempts to influence media coverage and the alleged dispensing of regulatory favors.

He is the first sitting Israeli prime minister to go through a preindictment hearing process.

Ehud Olmert, facing corruption allegations, quit as Israel's leader in 2008 before such sessions could be held or any indictment filed. He was eventually charged and convicted of accepting bribes and served 16 months in jail before his release in 2017.

On Tuesday, talks to form a national unity government hit a further snag after Netanyahu's centrist election rival, Benny Gantz of the Blue and White party, called off a meeting with him scheduled for Wednesday.

With neither leader appearing able to put together a coalition with a ruling majority on his own, Israel's president last week gave Netanyahu 28 days to try to form the next government in the hope of securing a power-sharing deal.

Gantz, however, has pledged not to serve in a government under a premier facing criminal charges.

The post Netanyahu tries to avert indictment as he fights for political life appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit has already said he intends to file criminal charges against Netanyahu in high-profile cases that have dominated Israeli headlines for years.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

But at a series of pretrial hearings Netanyahu's lawyers are arguing that prosecutors should not press charges in three graft cases.

Israel's longest-serving leader denies any wrongdoing. But he has fought two inconclusive parliamentary elections this year under the shadow of allegations that opponents seized upon, waving "Crime Minister" banners at political rallies.

His chief opponent, former general Benny Gantz, said he would not serve in a cabinet led by a prime minister who faces indictment.

Here is a guide to the criminal cases surrounding Netanyahu.

What are the allegations against Netanyahu?

The attorney general announced in February that he intends to file criminal charges against Netanyahu in investigations listed as cases 4000, 1000 and 2000, pending the outcome of the hearings. Netanyahu could face fraud and breach of trust charges in all three cases, and bribery charges in case 4000.

Netanyahu says he is the victim of a politically orchestrated "witch-hunt" by the media and the left to oust him from office.

Case 4000 alleges that Netanyahu granted regulatory favors to Israel's leading telecommunications company, Bezeq Telecom Israel, in return for positive coverage of him and his wife Sara on a news website controlled by the company's former chairman.

Case 1000 alleges that Netanyahu and his wife wrongfully received gifts from Arnon Milchan, a prominent Hollywood producer and an Israeli citizen, and Australian billionaire businessman James Packer, including champagne and cigars.

In Case 2000, Netanyahu is suspected of negotiating a deal with the owner of the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, for better coverage in return for legislation that would slow the growth of its main competitor, Israel Hayom.

What is the purpose of the pretrial hearings?

They grant the prime minister's legal team a chance to argue against the prospective charges and to convince the attorney general to scrap or reduce them. Netanyahu is not expected to attend the hearings, which will be held on four days, ending next Monday.

After hearing the arguments, the attorney general is expected to decide by the end of December whether to indict Netanyahu.

What happens if Netanyahu is charged?

If Netanyahu is indicted it could take many months before his trial begins. He could also seek a plea deal rather than stand trial.

If still serving as prime minister, Netanyahu would be under no strict legal obligation to quit. According to Israeli law, a prime minister must step down if ultimately convicted, but can stay in office throughout legal proceedings, including appeals.

Netanyahu's supporters in parliament have said they would support granting him immunity from prosecution. But it is unclear whether there are enough lawmakers to back such a move.

If convicted in a trial, what does Netanyahu face?

Bribery charges carry a sentence of up to 10 years in jail and/or a fine. Fraud and breach of trust carry a prison sentence of up to three years.

The post Netanyahu's legal woes: How much trouble is he in? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The first mission for Netanyahu's defense team is to try and convince Mendelblit and his staff to avoid indicting the prime minister in three different cases of alleged corruption in which he is a suspect, or at least reduce the charges.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

As the meeting began, Caspi said, "There is material that can change the way things seem. The issue of clemency or a plea bargain is not on the table."

Hadad added, "We will present the evidence we are all familiar with, as well as new evidence. We are certain that when we are finished presenting our side, there will be no option other than to close the case. We believe in the hearing process. We are not talking about a deal. We believe that in the end, all three cases must be closed."

A brief overview of the cases:

In Case 1,000, Netanyahu is suspected of fraud and breach of trust for allegedly accepting bribes in the form of presents worth some 700,000 shekels ($200,000) from two wealthy businessmen. The hearing is scheduled to review the charges in Case 1,000 on Monday.

In Case 2,000, Netanyahu is suspected of fraud and breach of trust for allegedly conspiring with the publisher of the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Arnon "Noni" Mozes, to limit the circulation of Israel Hayom in exchange for favorable coverage in the former publication. The charges are scheduled to be reviewed on Sunday.

The most serious charge against Netanyahu is bribery, of which he has been accused in Case 4,000, which involves allegations that Netanyahu traded financial benefits for the Bezeq telecommunications corporation for positive coverage of him and his family when he held the communications portfolio. The charges in Case 4,000 will be reviewed on Wednesday and Thursday.

Netanyahu's defense team has already scored a small victory. Shortly before Rosh Hashanah, Mendelblit announced that he had agreed to their request to extend the hearing from two days to four, which would allow his attorneys time to present all their arguments.

After the hearing, all the officials involved in all the cases will meet to examine the merits of the defense and determine how they affect the overall legal picture. When the hearing process is complete, Mendelblit will have to decide whether or not to indict Netanyahu, in which cases and on what counts. He is expected to make his decision before State Attorney Shai Nitzan resigns from office in December.

In the prime minister's inner circle, tensions were running high ahead of the start of the hearing. Close associates were saying that Netanyahu believes that if he is given due process, he can demonstrate that the most serious allegations against him are baseless. Netanyahu is expected to argue that the decisions he made regarding the Bezeq corporation were supported by expert advisers and that they had nothing to do with his family's ties to the primary shareholder, Shaul Elovitch.

Netanyahu is not expected to attend the hearings.

If Mendelblit does decide to indict the prime minister, it could take many months before the trial begins. Netanyahu could also seek a plea deal.

If he is still in office as prime minister, Netanyahu would be under no strict legal obligation to quit. According to Israeli law, a prime minister must step down if ultimately convicted, but can stay in office throughout legal proceedings including appeals.

Netanyahu's supporters in the legislature have said they would support granting him parliamentary immunity from prosecution, but it is unclear whether there are enough lawmakers who would back such a move.

Bribery charges carry a sentence of up to 10 years in jail and/or a fine. Fraud and breach of trust carry a prison sentence of up to three years.

The post PM's attorneys: All 3 cases must be closed appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The decision comes in response to a petition by The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, which asked the court to force Nitzan to make public the summary of his legal opinion regarding cases 1,000 and 2,000 because of supposed differences between him and Mendelblit over the charges Netanyahu should face in court.

Case 1,000 centers on gifts Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, allegedly received from billionaire businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Case 2,000 focuses on an illicit deal Netanyahu allegedly tried to strike with Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes under which the daily would soften its aggressive anti-Netanyahu stance in return for the prime minister using his influence to curtail the activities of Israel Hayom, Yedioth's chief rival.

Netanyahu has also been embroiled in Case 4,000, in which he is suspected of having offered Shaul Elovitch, the controlling shareholder in the Bezeq communications giant, regulatory benefits supposedly worth hundreds of millions of shekels in exchange for favorable coverage of Netanyahu and his family on the Bezeq-owned Walla news website.

Mendelblit plans to indict Netanyahu on fraud and breach of trust in all three cases, as well as on one count of accepting a bribe in Case 4,000.

In the court ruling on Thursday, the justices said that there were "no grounds to second guess Mendelblit's decision [on the scope of the charges]."

The petitioners slammed the ruling saying that "Supreme Court precedents have made it clear that whenever there are substantial disagreements among investigators, then legal opinions should be made public, as was the case in Netanyahu's corruption probes in the 1990s."

The organization said releasing the information would allow the public to fully understand what guided the attorney general in his decisions regarding corruption cases of public officials.

The post High Court: State attorney's legal opinions on Netanyahu to remain under wraps appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"This is the definition of injustice," Netanyahu said after Mendelblit informed his lawyers that he had rejected his request to hold the hearing only after he swears in a new government in late 2019.

Several months ago Mendelblit released a report laying out the charges against Netanyahu in three corruption cases, saying he would make a final decision on an indictment after Netanyahu appeared for a hearing.

The charges include allegations that he accepted gifts from billionaire friends and promoted beneficial regulations for a telecom magnate in exchange for positive coverage on a news site.

Netanyahu's lawyers and Mendelblit set the hearing for October, but last week the Knesset dissolved unexpectedly after the collapse of coalition talks and a new election was called for Sept. 17, less than six months after Israelis went to the polls and gave Netanyahu and his right-wing allies a clear mandate to lead the country again.

"Because of the unprecedented situation in which a new election is being imposed on us, law enforcement should show flexibility on the date of the hearing," Netanyahu said, citing other cases in which subjects of corruption investigations were given extra time in light of changing circumstances.

The post PM slams AG for denying delay in corruption hearing appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Netanyahu was dismissive of the arrests, issuingd a statement saying, "Another fake investigation resulting from media pressure. The media witch hunt is in full swing. Now that all the air has been let out of the balloons called Case 1,000 and Case 2,000, and now that it is clear that the balloon called Case 3,000 was never inflated to begin with, the media is doing all it can to inflate another balloon, Case 4,000. But this balloon will also deflate."

Cases 1,000 and 2,000 are ongoing corruption cases against Netanyahu, the first focusing on allegedly illicit gifts and the second on attempted media manipulation. Case 3,000, in which Netanyahu is not a suspect, focuses on suspected corruption in the Israeli purchase of German submarines.

Netanyahu has not been named as a suspect in Case 4,000. He is expected to be questioned by the Israel Police about possible irregularities in the regulations adopted in his capacity as communications minister between 2014 and 2017, and about his ties to Bezeq's controlling shareholder Shaul Elovitch.

Police revealed few details about the case and quickly slapped a gag order on it. But according to some media reports, police may be looking at a possible relationship between Bezeq, Shaul Elovitch and Netanyahu.

According to speculation, Netanyahu may have received favorable coverage from the Walla news site, a Bezeq subsidiary, in exchange for media regulation that earned Elovitch hundreds of millions of shekels. However, it is unclear whether Netanyahu or his associates were involved in this supposed scheme.

The seven people who were arrested Sunday, whose names are under gag orders, are five senior Bezeq executives, a senior government ministry official, and a communications adviser close to Netanyahu.

According to sources familiar with the investigation, the prime minister's wife, Sara, could also be quizzed because of her associations with the suspects.

In Netanyahu's statement on Sunday, he said the Justice Ministry "has already made it clear, in the state comptroller's report, that the prime minister never made controversial decisions [regarding Bezeq]. He made no decision that was specifically tailored to help Bezeq or any decision that could be controversial or considered a conflict of interest. Therefore, this is just a fake bubble that will burst as well."

The developments in Case 4,000 come days after police announced there was sufficient evidence to indict Netanyahu in both Case 1,000 and Case 2,000. The recommended charges are fraud and breach of trust (considered one offense under the penal code), as well as soliciting and accepting bribes.

In Case 1,000, Netanyahu is accused of receiving lavish gifts from Hollywood mogul Arnon Milchan and Australian billionaire James Packer. In return, police say Netanyahu operated on Milchan's behalf on U.S. visa matters, tried to promote legislation that would help ease his tax burden and connected him with an Indian businessman.

In the second case, Case 2,000, Netanyahu is accused of offering Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes preferential treatment in exchange for more favorable coverage.

The post Netanyahu slams media 'witch hunt' after his associates are arrested appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.