High-profile case10/25/2026

Mandelblit to Testify for Five Consecutive Days in “Case 1000”

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit continued testifying in the trial involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cases. The court examined the scope of the authorizations for investigative actions in “Case 1000” and why the warning given to Netanyahu did not specify the particular suspected offense.

Key facts

•The case: “Case 1000” in the trial involving Netanyahu’s cases
•The witness: Avichai Mandelblit
•The judge: Moshe Bar-Am
•The defense attorney: Attorney Amit Hadad
•The decision: five consecutive days of testimony
•The hearing date was identified in the source only as Sunday

What Mandelblit Was Questioned About

Netanyahu’s attorney, Amit Hadad, asked about the wiretapping of the prime minister’s associate, Natan Eshel. Mandelblit said that such an action required his prior approval, and when it became clear that approval had not been obtained, he ordered the wiretapping to stop. According to him, investigators were given some freedom of action, but the most important steps had to be brought to his attention.

Limits of the Authorization for the Inquiry

Judge Moshe Bar-Am sought to clarify whether the authorization Mandelblit had given permitted a general investigation into Netanyahu’s receipt of gifts from businesspeople. Mandelblit replied that he had authorized an inquiry into the matter, not each investigative action separately or a particular classification of the offense. According to him, moving to an in-depth examination required presenting him with new information, and Hadas Klein’s testimony about the supply system and the use of agreed-upon code names was materially significant.

How Netanyahu Was Warned

The defense cited the wording stating that Netanyahu was questioned under caution on suspicion of receiving valuable benefits from wealthy individuals and businesspeople through relatives. The warning did not specify the particular suspected offense. Mandelblit explained that he sought to focus on the facts and leave room among the possible offenses of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust; initially, it appeared to him that the situation concerned breach of trust more than bribery.

What the Court Decided

The judges granted the defense’s request regarding the schedule for the continuation of the examination. Next week, Mandelblit is expected to testify for five consecutive days. The source does not report any final ruling on the charges in “Case 1000.”

What this means for you

The hearing shows that in an investigation involving a prime minister, the court separately examines both the existence of authorizations for significant investigative actions and the clarity of the warning given to the suspect. For an ordinary person in a similar situation, this underscores the importance of the precise wording of the suspicions and adherence to the prescribed investigative procedure, although the source draws no conclusions about the implications of possible violations.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings