Last week, the Lavi organization - Civil Rights, Proper Administration and the Encouragement of Settlement - filed a detailed and reasoned complaint with the Ombudsman for Judges, retired Judge Asher Kola - against Supreme Court Justice Yitzhak Amit.
The complaint, filed through attorney Yosef Ben Baruch, reveals a long series of incidents in which Judge Amit allegedly acted with a serious conflict of interest, enjoyed suspicious benefits, gave evolving and unreliable versions, and violated his own rulings.
The organization calls for a thorough investigation into the conduct, which undermines public trust in the judicial system.
The complaint focuses on several key issues, including:
The Tel Aviv property affair and the Goldfreund brothers: Judge Amit conducted legal proceedings in an inherited property in Tel Aviv under his maiden name “Goldfriend,” without reporting them as required by law. For example, in an administrative petition against a decision not to include the property in urban renewal (ATM 54578-10-24), Judge Kobi Vardi – whose candidacy for re-judgement was approved by the Judicial Selection Committee of which Judge Amit is a member – considered the case.
The complaint highlights the lack of transparency and the unanswered questions: Did Judge Amit promote Vardi's candidacy a few months before the latter began handling his case, and did Vardi know about the petitioner's identity?
Conflict of interest with Attorney Moran Gur: Judge Amit will be represented by the Reisman-Gur law firm in a lawsuit to dissolve a property partnership (TA 40637-04-19), but at the same time he will discuss proceedings in which Adv. Gour represented other parties, such as RA 6874/21, AA 5074/21 and AA 4084/21. In response to the publication, Judge Amit provided a letter that was forwarded to him in which it was claimed that Gour never represented him.
The letter was revealed, allegedly and according to media reports, to be false – a blatant deception by the Minister of Justice and the Judicial Selection Committee.
Contacts with Acro Real Estate: Judge Amit is hearing an appeal against Acro Real Estate Development (AA 7235/19), while its subsidiary entered into a clearance-construction deal with him on his property. The complaint states that Judge Amit attempted to evade responsibility by “turning a blind eye” – granting a notarized power of attorney to his brother in 2016, in order to “not be involved,” even though the Judicial Ethics Committee prohibited the use of similar trustees in its decisions (A/46/20).
Hearing on construction-evac petitions without proper disclosure: Judge Amit considered a petition regarding the standard of appraiser for evacuation-construction (HCJ 8958/21) and exemptions from the improvement levy (the petitions for exemption from the improvement levy), without disclosing that he himself had entered into a transaction that might be affected by the results of these petitions.
In one of the proceedings, Judge Amit later disqualified himself, but this, he claims, was because of his daughter's purchase of an apartment in initial negotiations for an eviction-reconstruction. The disqualification on a much more distant basis, of his daughter's apartment, cannot be reconciled with Judge Amit's position that he himself has no potential for a conflict of interest in these proceedings.
The indictment case and the handling of the Tel Aviv Municipality: In 2019, an indictment was filed against Judge Amit for a dangerous structure (criminal proceeding), but the municipality withdrew it without giving any reason, while the proceeding continued against the remaining tenants. At the same time, Judge Amit was hearing proceedings against the municipality, such as AIA 9047/17, in suspiciously close temporal proximity.
The complaint emphasizes the settled presumption (according to Case No. 4506/15) that a benefit to a public employee is given for action in his position and the fact that Judge Amit does not deny that he knew about the criminal proceeding. Furthermore, the response given by Judge Amit, which compared the criminal proceeding in question to a parking ticket, was, ostensibly, incorrect and misleading.
The Board of Directors Affair: Judge Amit issued an interim order in a petition against the cancellation of the board of directors (HCJ 1227/21), while his brother is a member of the board, serves as a director in one government company (and may be appointed to another company) - and has a real personal interest in the board not being canceled.
Judge Amit's response - that this is an "institutional-principled" issue - contradicts his own ruling in the Ronen Bar matter (HCJ 54321-03-25), where he ruled that a conflict of interest also exists in the interests of relatives, and even more distant ones.
Construction violations in his home: Judge Amit purchased a house in Mevaseret Zion with construction violations, received an exceptional permit to complete the construction, but did not carry it out. After an initial denial (“no construction offense was committed”), he changed his version and submitted an urgent request to renew the expired permit – in violation of the Planning and Building Law, in close proximity to the meeting of the committee to select judges on his appointment as president.
Publication of excerpts from the committee minutes reveals that the discussion was added off the agenda, according to some committee members - "in order not to delay an important appointment for the State of Israel."
It was argued that this benefit was not given to Associate Judge Amit against his will or without his knowledge, but rather following a request that he himself submitted to the committee near the hearing of his case.
The cumulative effect: The complaint emphasizes the systematic conduct, referring to the ruling (Criminal Code 6477/22) according to which multiple wrongful acts accumulate to an offense, as well as to previous cases such as the discussion of the International Bank (where his brother served as a director) and Dor Alon (where his brother-in-law served as chairman).
The Lavi organization stated: Yitzhak Amit's conduct is exceptional by any standard, and seriously damages the public's trust in the judicial system. We expect the Public Acceptance Commissioner for Judges - retired Judge Asher Kola, to examine the cases impartially and deliver a fair trial.
English 
Hebrew