Prime minister is prime suspect

The Treasury prepared a tender for the said stock, and a short while before the tender was made public Olmert replaced Benjamin Netanyahu in the post of finance minister.

One of the things the new minister did was to change the structure of the bid in a way that would assist certain investors – one of them was represented by an attorney's office that belongs to Olmert's father in law, the determining factor in the affair.

According to testimonies given to police by members of the Treasury, Olmert didn't report these family ties to a soul. He was aware, or at least he should have been aware, that the details were published openly as two of his predecessors had also found themselves in similar situations and were forced to transfer their authorities to other ministers.

This was the case during the sale of Bank Leumi's controlling shares when former Finance Minister Avraham Shochat transferred his powers to Yossi Beilin. Similarly, during the sale of the government's shares in the Discount Bank, Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu transferred his powers to former Knesset minister Yosef Lapid. Olmert chose to remain silent about his family ties.

Supreme Court unequivocal

In actual fact, the person who could have benefited from Olmert's decision, the one who would be represented by the current prime minister's father's law office, didn't participate in the tender and didn't acquire the government's shares.

Did Olmert's actions (distorting the tender) and his shortcomings (not making his family ties known) constitute a breach of trust? The Supreme Court, comprising a nine judge panel, ruled on this somewhat elusive offense. It ruled that the outcome is not important. Namely, the fact that the anticipated beneficiary didn't receive a thing is not relevant.

What matters is the mode of conduct. Particularly, ruled the court, the test lies in whether the suspect's conduct is appropriate for a civil servant. Do we expect a civil servant, who decides on matters pertaining to money, to announce that he has possible family ties with someone who may benefit from his decision? It appears that this answer to this question is unequivocal.

Alas, Olmert had no intention, say what they may. This is one of the things that are difficult to clarify. However, the court thought that this wasn't important either. The real test lies in whether public trust in a civil servant, in this case – Olmert – will suffer if it becomes known that he intervened in the tender and remained silent as he did. It seems that the response to this is also positive.

Finally, this is a minor matter when it comes to money. In this regard, the court stated that even a minor action by a civil servant potentially has significant influence.

The missing link: PM's testimony

Breach of trust is an elusive offense because it deals with conduct, not in the outcome. This offense is aimed at preventing a more serious offense – provision of perks, for example. The sole purpose of the offense is to observe what the senior figure is doing and to evaluate whether it is appropriate or not. In such an examination, Olmert's conduct screams for investigation.

The problem is that the investigation is almost over. Several months ago the attorney general instructed the police to investigate the matter. During the investigation, testimonies were taken from all the persons involved in the affair, except for one. All the documents were gathered and filed.

The evidence is clear; the only thing missing is the testimony of the prime suspect.

So what's to be done? The answer to this question is ostensibly simple: An announcement should be made that an investigation will be carried out with the purpose of collecting testimony under caution from the prime minister. There is a reasonable chance of this happening next week, and that's a pity.

Why is it a pity? Because there are persistent rumors, according to which the attorney general and the state prosecutor will not indict a person for breach of trust – if it is the only offense.

Why? Because of the somewhat elusive nature of the offense. If this is indeed the stance taken by these two men – it would be a pity to make a mockery of themselves with such an investigation just for the sake of appearances. As if they are taking the offense seriously.

At a time when the heads of the tax authority are suspected of breach of trust – there does not seem to be more than this in the reports against them so far – there is great significance in dealing with the conduct of senior figures. In other words: Yes, a man should be indicted for breach of trust even if it is the only offense. And Olmert, according to reports, is a good case in point particularly after seeing how two of his predecessors conducted themselves, while he himself didn’t take heed.