MK OMRI SHARON NEARS POSSIBLE PLEA BARGAIN AS NEW

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TEL AVIV 004655

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/26/2015
TAGS: PGOV PHUM IS GOI INTERNAL
SUBJECT: MK OMRI SHARON NEARS POSSIBLE PLEA BARGAIN AS NEW
LAW REMOVES AUTOMATIC PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY

Classified By: Ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer for reasons 1.4 (b,d).


1. (C) SUMMARY. Prime Minister Sharon's son Omri, a Likud MK
since 2003, is nearing a plea bargain with Attorney General
Menachem Mazuz over charges related to his role in the
alleged illegal financing of Prime Minister Sharon's 1999
leadership campaign for the Likud Party. A political and
legal controversy has erupted over whether Mazuz should offer
Omri Sharon a deal without taking him to trial, where details
of PM Sharon's involvement could be exposed. Mazuz is
reportedly considering whether to charge Omri with criminal
fraud, which carries a maximum of seven years in jail, or
charge him only for violations of the campaign finance laws,
which carries only a fine. Omri's case has gotten mixed up
with legislation passed by the Knesset July 25 that removes
automatic parliamentary immunity for MKs from prosecution,
and requires that they petition the Knesset to keep their
immunity. According to media and Embassy sources, however,
Omri Sharon has already indicated that he would not have
opposed the lifting of his parliamentary immunity. END
SUMMARY.

--------------
Omri the Fall Guy?
--------------


2. (C) Attorney General Mazuz decided February 17, 2005 that
he would recommend that Omri Sharon be indicted, while at the
same time deciding to close the file against Prime Minister
Sharon and his top aides (including Senior Advisor Dov
Weissglas) finding that, "There is not enough evidence to
prove that Sharon was aware of the secret funding... and the
violation of the law...." Israeli NGO Movement for Quality
in Government (MQG) attorney Daniel Kayros told Poloff July
26 that, in essence, Omri became the "fall guy," and was left
holding the bag for alleged campaign finance violations and
criminal fraud associated with his father's 1999 campaign.

--------------
Plea Bargain and What's under the Carpet
--------------


3. (C) With word out that Omri may be reaching a deal with
Mazuz, media pundits, some of PM Sharon's political
opponents, and MQG have criticized Mazuz for indicating he
will not go to trial. According to Kolev, "Omri has already
declared he is not hiding behind (parliamentary)
immunity...that he would give it up." Kolev said that Omri
is now in the final days of bargaining with the AG over the
charges and the sentence. Attorney Kayros told Poloff that
MQG has sent a letter to Mazuz requesting that Mazuz not
accept a plea bargain, and take Omri to trial instead. "The
content of what will not be brought before the court is
extremely important" to the public interest, according to
Kayros. Kayros asserted that the public has the right to
know whether Prime Minister Sharon had been involved in the
alleged campaign financing scam. Yahad/Meretz MK Yossi Sarid
and Shinui MK Ilan Shalgi have reportedly called on Mazuz not
to accept a plea bargain, but to take Omri to trial in order
to bring to light any involvement of Prime Minister Sharon in
the campaign financing case.

--------------
Implications of New Immunity Law
--------------


4. (C) According to the MQG attorneys, the larger legal
issue that has been lost in the media's reporting on the new
law and on Omri, is how the law would actually broaden the
Knesset's role in deciding whether or not to lift an MK's
immunity. While the new law removes automatic immunity of an
MK, and places the onus on the MK to apply for immunity with
the Knesset, the MQG lawyers argue that the law actually
affords MKs and the Knesset additional reasons on which to
base a decision not to strip an MK's immunity, such as that
the MK already has faced disciplinary action, or that a
criminal trial is not in the public interest.


5. (C) MQG attorney Kayros pointed out that the new law was
actually "born in the sin of the Gorlovsky case." In this
case, the Knesset refused to lift the parliamentary immunity
of Likud MK Michael Gorlovsky for his unauthorized voting for
an absent MK colleague in a May 2003 Knesset vote.
Notwithstanding the High Court decision in June that the
Knesset's decision was illegal, the Knesset House Committee
voted against lifting Gorlovsky's immunity. The High Court
reasoned that the Knesset should only grant immunity to
protect an MK against politically motivated prosecution or
where the government was trying to prevent an MK from
fulfilling his/her Knesset duties, and not to shield
lawbreakers. Pursuant to the new law, Kolev argues, the
Knesset is placing itself more in the role of judicial
authority than lawmaker. MQG has appealed the Knesset's
decision to the High Court.

********************************************* ********************
Visit Embassy Tel Aviv's Classified Website:
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/telaviv

You can also access this site through the State Department's
Classified SIPRNET website.
********************************************* ********************
KURTZER