Senior jurists held their heads in shock at the sentence, which was described as excessive and puzzling: six years in prison for a man in serious medical condition - who didn't take a shekel into his pocket.
The bewilderment is mainly directed at the nagging question: How did Judge David Rosen not find a single reason to commute Uri Lupolianski's sentence? How did Rosen enter the courtroom as if it were any ordinary workday, and with a half-smile compare Lupolianski's sentence to that of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with all that this implies?.
It seems that Rosen is trying to adopt the American approach, which is very strict on economic offenses, but it is impossible to ignore the lack of compassion and equanimity that the judge displayed in his sentence. The beautiful words surrounding the sentence, which were spoken throughout the trial of Lupolianski, including by Judge Rosen himself, were spoken only for show - and at the moment of truth the judge turns a cold shoulder and rules harshly.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
Criminal lawyer Shashi Gaz said today: "There is no place for such an approach in the land of the Jews. Here the approach should be with proper balance, with a compassionate approach to a man who did so much for others.".
Lawyer Avi Himi, a criminal law expert, said: "This is a classic case for pardon, for the attention of the incoming president.".
Now Lupolianski's lawyers are diligently filing the appeal - and this is where, apparently, the hearing will reopen: not only will the severity of the sentence and his health condition be discussed, but the main discussion will revolve around the conviction itself.
For example, the judge refused to address the fact that the project was approved at all by the district committee, so that Lupolianski, as chairman of the local subcommittee, did not play a significant role in advancing the licensing procedures. Furthermore, in his ruling, the judge did not address the substantial contradictions that were discovered in Lupolianski's opposing testimony, nor did he mention what he himself claimed during the hearings, saying: "I don't understand how Lupolianski is even connected to this case?""
It is interesting to see the general media embracing Lupolianski. Even among those who were at the forefront of denouncing the defendants in the Holyland affair, there is great resentment and bewilderment over the verdict.
For example, journalist Yoav Yitzhak, who exposed the Holyland affair and did not spare his tongue against the other convicts, wrote the following words to the judge: "The Chief Justice had the duty and the right to expose the Holyland affair. And precisely by virtue of this, the Chief Justice is honored to call upon His Honor: to commute Lupolianski's sentence. This is precisely the case where a hand should be given to the convict and a great deal of leniency and mercy should be exercised in his case.".
""Mainly because of his medical condition, which endangers his life, and thanks to his enormous contribution to hundreds of thousands of patients in Israel. So that every person in Israel knows: when it comes to passing sentence, a judge is required to carry out justice for the convicted person while taking into account his rights. In no case did the legislator allow the death penalty to be imposed for the offense of bribery.".
Among the arguments in his request, Yitzhak lists five central issues: Because of the charity he founded - 'Yad Sarah', which has helped hundreds of thousands of patients in Israel for decades. There is no need to exaggerate and detail; Because of his serious illness, which endangers his life while he is free, let alone if he is sent to prison (which is not equipped to provide appropriate medical care); The money given as a bribe was channeled to "Yad Sarah" and ultimately financed the provision of aid and equipment to tens of thousands of patients; Lupoliansky did not receive or benefit, personally or privately, from even a single penny; Unlike many others who founded charity organizations and exploited their status to their advantage - Lupoliansky and his family conducted themselves with diligence and modesty and even donated their own money. He and his family did not use "Yad Sarah" to accumulate personal assets.
But some jurists believe that it was precisely because of Yoav Yitzhak's detailed article, and the positive support that Lupoliansky received from many journalists, that Judge Rosen had difficulty aligning himself with what was said in the media - and therefore became stricter.
According to Yoav Yitzhak - as mentioned, the Holyland affair exposer - Lupoliansky took nothing into his pocket, which was indeed clarified in the ruling. Therefore, in his opinion, according to the rules of the case law, there is no charge of bribery. At most, a conflict of interest or improper conduct can be alleged, and these are the claims that will be raised, among other things, in the appeal to be filed with the Supreme Court.
