Case 4000—the most serious and consequential of the criminal cases against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—has long been portrayed by prosecutors as the centerpiece of their corruption allegations. Yet testimony heard this week in the Jerusalem District Court has intensified claims by Netanyahu’s allies that the case is not merely weak, but compromised by investigative misconduct.

According to Likud spokesman Guy Levy, testimony delivered on Tuesday by Ron Solomon, a serving senior investigator in the Israel Police’s signals intelligence (SIGINT) unit, revealed evidence of intentional suppression of exculpatory material, alteration of professional findings and continued investigative activity even after indictments were filed—all in service of sustaining a narrative that was unraveling under its own weight.

The flagship case—and why it mattered most

Among the three cases against Netanyahu—Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000—Case 4000 has always been regarded by prosecutors as the most severe. Unlike the others, it alleged a direct quid pro quo: that Netanyahu, while serving as communications minister, advanced regulatory decisions favorable to Bezeq, Israel’s largest telecom company, owned by Shaul Elovitch, in exchange for favorable coverage on the Walla news site.

Central to that theory is an alleged meeting between Netanyahu and Filber during the latter’s first week in office. The prime minister has consistently denied that such a conversation ever took place.

On the witness stand, Solomon testified that cell phone location data never placed Filber together with Netanyahu at the time of the alleged meeting. According to his testimony, the police had assembled a detailed chronology early in the investigation demonstrating that the meeting did not occur.

That data, Solomon said, was transferred to the prosecution.

According to Levy, the significance is unmistakable: The prosecution allegedly knew that the foundational claim of the meeting was false, yet indicted Netanyahu anyway—while withholding the contradictory location evidence from the defense and the court.

If correct, this would amount to concealment of exculpatory material, misrepresentation to the court and the filing of indictments based on claims known to be untrue.

From “favorable coverage” to “exceptional responsiveness”

Solomon’s testimony also addressed the prosecution’s shifting theory regarding media coverage.

Initially, prosecutors alleged that Netanyahu received positive coverage from Walla. During pre-indictment hearings before then–Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, the defense demonstrated that the coverage was frequently hostile, inconsistent and often negative.

Faced with that reality, the prosecution rebranded the allegation as “exceptional responsiveness” or unusually preferential treatment.

Solomon testified that he was tasked with reviewing Walla’s coverage of Netanyahu’s controversial Election Day 2015 statement warning that Arab voters were turning out “in droves.”

His findings contradicted the prosecution’s narrative. Walla was the third outlet to report the statement, later published a follow-up article debunking Netanyahu’s claim, and framed its coverage in a sharply hostile tone, including accusations of racism from opposition leaders.

Solomon testified that he had submitted these findings to the commander of the police’s financial crimes unit—only to be instructed to delete the information supporting Netanyahu’s position.

According to Solomon, the directive came from above, under guidance from the prosecution.

The big picture

The developments in Case 4000 come against the backdrop of the other cases against Netanyahu, each of which the defense and Likud officials describe as increasingly tenuous.

In Case 1000, prosecutors allege that Netanyahu and his family received gifts—including cigars, champagne and even a Bugs Bunny doll—valued at approximately $230,000 over many years from wealthy acquaintances. The prosecution concedes there was no specific quid pro quo, arguing instead that accepting gifts constituted a breach of trust because it might have compromised Netanyahu at some undefined future point.

In Case 2000, Netanyahu is accused of discussing a possible quid pro quo with Arnon “Noni” Mozes, publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, under which Netanyahu would advance legislation restricting the free distribution of the pro-Netanyahu daily Israel Hayom in exchange for more favorable coverage. The prosecution openly acknowledges that the quid pro quo never occurred, yet argues that the mere conversation constitutes a criminal breach of trust.