Mandelblit resumes testimony as Netanyahu defense presses on investigation approvals

Avichai Mandelblit resumed testimony at the Jerusalem District Court on Monday in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trial. He appeared as a defense witness, even though he had authorized the investigations and later approved the indictment. Netanyahu’s lawyer, Amit Hadad, is testing whether police followed the conditions attached to Mandelblit’s approvals.

The questioning covered what police were allowed to examine and which steps needed fresh permission. Mandelblit said he had ordered police to stop wiretapping Natan Eshel after learning about it. The hearing also examined investigators’ questions to Hadas Klein and Yonatan Hasson about gifts connected to Case 1000.

Mandelblit maintained that investigators remained within his broad authorization to examine suspected benefits Netanyahu received from businessmen. Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned how police could tell which steps were covered. The testimony therefore centers on investigative boundaries, while Netanyahu’s trial continues over three cases and alleged gifts, dealings, and regulatory benefits.

An investigative authorization is permission from a responsible legal authority to examine defined suspicions. It matters because police powers are meant to operate within stated boundaries, rather than expand without oversight. In this case, the defense is asking whether investigators followed Mandelblit’s instructions when examining alleged gifts and related witnesses.

Hadad focused on investigators’ questions to Hadas Klein, Milchan’s assistant, and Yonatan Hasson, Packer’s driver. He challenged whether those questions went beyond Mandelblit’s approval. Mandelblit answered that he had authorized a broader examination of suspicions that Netanyahu received substantial benefits from businessmen, so investigators did not need permission for every individual action.

Judge Moshe Bar-Am pressed the practical issue: how should investigators distinguish routine steps from major developments requiring fresh consent? Mandelblit said the approved subject set the boundaries, while significant developments required consultation. The court is testing whether that standard was followed and what effect any breach might have.

Mandelblit said he ordered police to stop wiretapping Natan Eshel after learning that the operation was underway. The striking point is that investigators already had a court warrant. Mandelblit nevertheless considered the surveillance especially sensitive because Eshel was closely involved in Netanyahu’s personal and political affairs.

His position was that investigators should have sought his approval beforehand, despite the warrant. The example shows two separate questions being examined: whether a judge authorized the surveillance under a warrant, and whether the investigators also had the required prosecutorial approval. Mandelblit treated the second safeguard as necessary in this situation.

The testimony gives the defense a concrete example for its broader challenge to police conduct. It also shows Mandelblit distinguishing ordinary investigative steps from unusually sensitive ones. The article does not state what final ruling the court will make about the wiretap, but the issue remains part of the examination of investigative limits.

Netanyahu’s trial includes three cases involving alleged gifts and dealings with media owners. The charges are serious but remain allegations, and Netanyahu denies wrongdoing. The trial began in May 2020 and is still examining testimony about how investigators built the cases.

He faces fraud and breach-of-trust charges in all three cases. In Case 4000, he also faces a bribery charge. That case concerns alleged regulatory benefits for Bezeq in exchange for intervention in Walla’s news coverage, linking government decisions with alleged media influence.

The current testimony concerns the authorization of investigative steps, including evidence connected to Case 1000. Mandelblit authorized the investigations and later approved the indictment. His answers could therefore help the court assess how the investigation proceeded, but the article does not state that the court has decided whether any evidence or charge will be affected.

Case 1000 concerns expensive gifts that Netanyahu allegedly received from businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer. It also concerns actions Netanyahu allegedly took to benefit Milchan. The case matters here because the defense is challenging whether investigators stayed within the approval governing their preliminary examination.

Investigators questioned Hadas Klein, Milchan’s assistant, and Yonatan Hasson, Packer’s driver, about gifts. Hadad argued that these inquiries may have expanded beyond what Mandelblit authorized. The witnesses’ roles made them relevant to tracing what gifts were provided and how the alleged benefits were understood by people close to the businessmen.

Mandelblit disagreed with the defense’s characterization. He said investigators had broad permission to examine suspicions that Netanyahu received substantial benefits from businessmen. In his view, that authorization continued to cover these questions, without requiring approval for every individual investigative action. Judge Bar-Am questioned how that boundary should operate in practice.

If the court finds that investigators exceeded Mandelblit’s authorization, the defense could argue that evidence obtained through the unauthorized steps should not be used. The issue matters because the prosecution’s case may depend on testimony or material gathered during those inquiries. A procedural breach does not automatically decide the trial, however.

For example, the court could examine whether questions put to Hadas Klein or Yonatan Hasson went beyond the approved subject. It might consider how serious the departure was, whether the evidence was obtained through that step, and whether another lawful basis supported it. Those details would help determine the consequence.

The article does not state the remedy available in this case. Under general criminal-procedure principles, a court may exclude evidence, limit its use, or allow it while reducing its weight, depending on the law and circumstances. Any ruling could affect the strength of the prosecution’s presentation, but no outcome has been announced.

Criminal investigations use multiple approvals to prevent one institution from controlling every stage. A judicial warrant generally addresses whether a particular intrusive action, such as wiretapping, is legally justified. Prosecutorial approval addresses the investigation’s direction and boundaries. Police then conduct the authorized work and must stay within those limits.

The article illustrates the division through Natan Eshel’s wiretap. Investigators had a court warrant, but Mandelblit said they still needed his approval because Eshel was closely tied to Netanyahu’s personal and political affairs. In the broader inquiry, Mandelblit approved a subject, while police decided which individual investigative steps to take.

This division creates accountability but can produce boundary disputes. Judge Bar-Am asked how investigators should distinguish covered steps from developments requiring new consent. Mandelblit said the approved subject set the limits, while significant developments required consultation. The article does not detail the governing law, so the exact responsibilities and remedies depend on the court’s legal assessment.