## Facts

- A major financial scandal involved alleged manipulation of major Israeli banks’ share prices, followed by a collapse that produced significant public losses and a government intervention to stabilize the banking system.
- After investigations, the Attorney General decided not to indict senior bank managers and certain related professionals, opting instead for administrative and professional measures (e.g., removal from positions and referral to professional disciplinary bodies).
- The Attorney General publicly justified the decision on public-interest grounds, including avoiding additional public cost and strain from renewed proceedings.
- Private petitioners sought judicial review in the Supreme Court of Israel sitting as the High Court of Justice, requesting annulment of the non-prosecution decision and an order requiring reconsideration and/or prosecution.
- Petitioners argued that the scale of the alleged misconduct required criminal indictments and that non-prosecution undermined equality in enforcement and public confidence.

## Issues

1. Whether an Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute, including when based on “public interest,” is subject to judicial review.
2. If reviewable, what standard governs intervention in a non-prosecution decision (e.g., extraneous considerations, discrimination, arbitrariness, or unreasonableness).
3. Whether reliance on non-criminal sanctions and on avoiding further public burden rendered the non-prosecution decision unlawful in light of equality before the law and the public interest.

## Decision

- The Court held that an Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute is, in principle, subject to judicial review.
- The Court emphasized substantial restraint in reviewing prosecutorial decisions and a high threshold for judicial intervention.
- The Court dismissed the petition and refused to annul the non-prosecution decision.
- The Court found no adequate basis to conclude that the decision was tainted by extraneous considerations, unlawful discrimination, or unreasonableness outside the permissible range of prosecutorial judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Prosecutorial discretion is a form of administrative discretion and is presumptively reviewable, even when it involves policy considerations.
- Judicial intervention in non-prosecution decisions is exceptional and generally limited to cases involving improper considerations, arbitrariness, discrimination, or extreme unreasonableness.
- “Public interest” in prosecution decisions may include broader considerations than punishment and deterrence, including public and systemic burdens, alternative sanctions, and the practical consequences of renewed criminal proceedings.
- Equality in enforcement is a relevant legality constraint; selective non-prosecution may be unlawful if shown to be discriminatory or arbitrary, but allegations require a sufficient evidentiary basis.
- The Attorney General is treated as a public officer charged with protecting legality and the public interest, not merely as the government’s advocate, and is accorded a broad margin of judgment in criminal charging policy.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized judicial review over decisions not to prosecute but upheld a strongly deferential approach, declining to overturn the Attorney General’s public-interest-based non-prosecution decision absent proof of improper motives, discrimination, or a level of unreasonableness that exceeds the lawful bounds of prosecutorial discretion.


Ganor v. Attorney General, HCJ 935/89, 44(2) PD 485 (Isr. 1990)