Prime Minister Ariel Sharon knew that his son, Gilad Sharon, would receive an enormous payment from David Appel, according to the revised indictment against Appel presented yesterday to the Tel Aviv Magistrates Court.
The indictment is based on the allegation that Appel used the promise of financial contributions to the reelection campaigns of Sharon and Minister of Industry, Trade, and Labor Ehud Olmert in order to obtain their support in business matters.
According to the indictment, Appel employed Gilad Sharon in the Greek island affair by promising him an extraordinary $3 million payment, despite Gilad Sharon’s lack of experience and qualifications. The payment was aimed at influencing Sharon to promote Appel’s interests in the Israel Land Administration (the Ginnaton deal), and in the Greek island affair. Ariel Sharon has been both Minister of National Infrastructures and Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Appel is accused of bribing Sharon and Olmert, who faced each other in the primary campaign for the Likud leadership in 1999, and of promising them to use his status and connections to promote their interests.
Late in 1998, Appel offered Gilad Sharon an undefined position in the Greek island project for a monthly payment of $10,000, plus $3 million. Appel transferred a total of $2.5 million, plus a further $100,000 to Sycamore Farm, owned by Gilad and MK Omri Sharon (Likud), as salary to Gilad Sharon. The indictment asserts that this constitutes a direct bribe to Ariel Sharon, and an effort to use Gilad Sharon to obtain Ariel Sharon’s support.
Adv. Moshe Yisrael, Appel’s attorney, said in response, “This is a direct continuation of the astonishing method by which the prosecutor adopts new legal arguments that lack precedents. These include filing an indictment before the investigation is completed, and before a decision is taken whether the other party accepted the bribe or not.
"As with the original indictment filed in September, the claim is made that someone gave a bribe, but there is no claim that anyone accepted it. This is possible from a legal standpoint. There are unusual cases, but is it conceivable or logical that for all ten charges there is intent only to bribe and not to receive?
"The charges are baseless. There is no intent by either the briber or the recipient. The hullabaloo was created for only one reason: unrelated considerations. Something had to be produced for three years of wiretapping.”
Published by Globes [online] - www.globes.co.il - on January 21, 2004