HaMoked has filed a complaint with the Legal Advisor to the Security Establishment concerning serious suspicions against a private investigator sent on behalf of the Defense Ministry to undertake an overt investigation in the home of Palestinian residents of the village of `Arraba: Among other suspicions, the interrogator is suspected of violating his obligations under the regulations; making a false representation; forwarding untrue information to his interrogators; trespassing; injuring the complainants’ rights and their due contacts with their attorney and with HaMoked staff with whom they have been in contact regarding the processing of their case

In June 2003 security forces entered the home of Palestinian residents of the village of `Arraba in the Jenin district and ransacked two apartments in one building. One of the apartments belongs to the complainant and the other is a living room and shop belonging to two elderly aunts of the complainant. HaMoked attorneys have represented the family since the incident before the various relevant authorities.

On 21 November 2007 HaMoked filed a complaint with the Legal Advisor to the Security Establishment concerning suspicions against a private investigator sent on behalf of the Claims and Insurance Division in the Defense Ministry to undertake an overt investigation in the context of the plaintiffs’ demand for compensation. The investigator presented himself to the plaintiff’s brother (who is not a party to the claim and does not live in the same house) and to the elderly aunts as an attorney on behalf of HaMoked who had come to collect material ahead of the hearing in their case. The investigator told them that his visit was coordinated with an employee of HaMoked known to them. His claims reassured those present and won their trust, and they agreed to speak to him and show him the damage. The brother was unable to estimate the value of the damaged property and referred the investigator to his brother on this aspect. The members of the family spoke to the investigator on the assumption that they were speaking to their own attorney. The investigator questioned those present in the house, photographed parts of the building, but refused their suggestion that he accompany them in order to talk to witnesses to the event.

On 21 June 2007 HaMoked received a letter from the Claims and Insurance Division stating that a private and overt investigation in the complainants’ home had shown that the alleged damages were “minor,” and, accordingly, a negligible sum was offered by way of compensation. A written request to receive the investigative material was rejected, however. From discussions with the Palestinians who were questioned and with the plaintiff (who, as noted, was not questioned), the plaintiffs and HaMoked uncovered the subterfuge.

This description raises prima facie suspicion that the investigator employed prohibited investigative practices. Thus, for example, regulation 3 of the Private Investigators and Security Services Regulations (Professional Ethics), 5732-1972 explicitly prohibits an investigator from pretending to be any other person. Pretending to be an attorney for HaMoked while exploiting the complainant’s trust in his counsel injures the relations between HaMoked, as counsel, and the complainant, as client. Moreover, the described manner in which the investigator entered the complainants’ home, prima facie, constitutes trespassing.

HaMoked is demanding that an exhaustive investigation be undertaken into the circumstances of this case. HaMoked is asking to receive the findings and the details of the investigator and the investigation company in order to consider further action.