State seeks to attach moral turpitude to Katsav's crimes

The State Prosecutor's Office announced Thursday that it would ask the magistrate's court trying former president Moshe Katsav for sex offenses to attach moral turpitude to the crimes for which he will be convicted under the terms of a plea agreement.

The announcement follows a decision made by the Knesset Finance Committee recently stating that a president or former president convicted of moral turpitude would be denied the financial benefits such an official normally receives from the state.

The State Prosecutor's Office argued that at the time that the plea bargain with Katsav was signed, there was no need to deal with the issue of moral turpitude because at that time the issue was purely theoretical, as it had no bearing on Katsav's financial privileges.

However, the prosecutor's office views the Finance Committee's decision as putting the plea bargain in a more positive light, as it adds the possibility of financial sanctions to the existing penalties, and as a further expression of the public denunciation of Katsav.

The State Prosecution's 100-page announcement contains detailed accounts of some of the case evidence in the sexual harassment cases against Katsav, and presents some of the evidence problems that led to the plea agreement in the place of a rape conviction.

In the announcement, the prosecutors outline evidence pertaining to two of the main complainants in the case, A. from the President's Residence who accused Katsav of raping her, and A. from the Tourism Ministry who also complained of rape. The first complainant was dropped from the indictment altogether due to evidence difficulties, and the second A. complaint was pleaded down to minor charges. The State Prosecution's announcement explains the reasons behind these moves.

The state requested that the High Court refrain from publishing that part of its announcement to avoid violating the complainants' privacy. "The gap between the law and the heart, which poses difficulties for the judge, can sometimes pose difficulties for the prosecutor as well. For example, there are times when he is forced to decide whether to file an indictment when he has evidence that seems to prove the counts brought against the defendant are not false, and that the charges have a basis in reality, while, on the other hand, he is not sufficiently convinced that there is a fair chance that the evidence will prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in court," the state's request concludes.