Court releases suspects in Modi’in Illit fraud scheme
The Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court on Monday released suspects on bail in an alleged NIS 280 million real estate taxfraud scheme connected to Modi’in Illit in the West Bank.
The scheme’s alleged mastermind, Mosh Glick, was placed under five days of house arrest and ordered to post bail of NIS 1.3m.
Two other suspects, Aharon Tolenfeld, the CEO of a real estate management company, and Rachel Elbaum, the lawyer for many of the transactions in question, were also released.
Tolenfeld was released to five days of house arrest with bail of NIS 850,000 and Elbaum with bail of NIS 850,000.
The two are suspected by the Tax Authority of helping Glick make a wide range of real estate sales from 2011 to 2017 while avoiding paying taxes.
According to Glick’s lawyer, Udi Barzilai, “The deals were reported fully to the tax authorities in Israel. Mr. Glick acted completely according to law... All of the accusations about false reports to the Tax Authority were already litigated in civil court and rejected by the civil court.”
Barzilai accused “third parties” who lost their case against Glick in the civil court of “continuing mudslinging for revenge and out for the money.”
Barzilai essentially said that rivals of Glick provided a half-picture to tax authorities in order to try ruining him after losing in civil court, and now that Glick was providing the full picture, he would be exonerated.
In a November 24, 2016, decision obtained by The Jerusalem Post, the Tel Aviv District Court rejected a motion to compel appointment of a liquidating trustee over companies connected with Glick that are part of the criminal investigation.
The two companies are Realtor Investments Inc. and Blueharbor Assets SA.
The Tel Aviv District Court had rejected a variety of fraud allegations against Glick, but it is unclear whether the current evidence against him contains new information.
There were no allegations that the case had any ideological elements related to West Bank settlement, although there have been cases reported showing a trend of some shoddy supervision and institutionalization of certain aspects of real estate law across the Green Line.