## Facts

- The case is a consolidated appeal from two criminal matters involving Cohen, heard together because they raised the same statutory-status question.
- The excerpted case materials do not recount the underlying conduct or the factual setting of the alleged bribery.
- The prosecutions turned on whether Cohen fell within the term “public servant” as used and defined for purposes of § 290 of the Israeli Penal Code (bribery involving a public servant).
- The trial court read “public servant” broadly and treated Cohen as covered by § 290.
- Cohen appealed, arguing that the trial court’s broad reading improperly expanded criminal liability.
- The State of Israel responded that the trial court’s reading was justified in light of the statute’s purpose as an anti-bribery measure.

## Issues

1. Whether, at the relevant time, Cohen qualified as a “public servant” within the meaning of § 290 of the Israeli Penal Code.
2. Whether interpreting “public servant” broadly in this context conflicts with the principle of legality, which calls for narrow construction of criminal statutes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Israel considered a consolidated criminal appeal from two cases presenting the same question: whether Cohen was a “public servant” under § 290.
- Based on the publicly available excerpt, the Court’s final disposition (affirmed/reversed/modified) is not reported.
- Based on the publicly available excerpt, the Court’s specific reasoning and any test for determining “public servant” status under § 290 are not available.

## Legal Principles

- Bribery liability under § 290 depends on whether the accused fits the statutory category of “public servant” as defined for that offense.
- The principle of legality in criminal law restricts courts from extending criminal liability through uncertain or expansive interpretation beyond what the statutory text can fairly bear.
- Where statutory language is disputed, the State may argue for a construction consistent with the law’s anti-corruption aim, while the defendant may argue that legality requires a tighter reading.
- From the accessible excerpt alone, no black-letter rule, factor list, or interpretive hierarchy used by the Supreme Court in this case can be stated with confidence.

## Conclusion

Cohen v. State of Israel, CrimC 766/07 (2007), is a consolidated Israeli Supreme Court criminal appeal concerning whether Cohen was a “public servant” for § 290 bribery purposes and whether legality limits a broad reading of that term; however, because the excerpted materials omit the underlying facts and do not include the holding or reasoning, the outcome and governing rule cannot be reliably summarized from the available record.
