He knew the tax system from the inside and was convicted of fraud: 18 months in prison for accountant Erez Mins
The accountant who worked at the Tax Authority was convicted of offences involving his own returns and those of his clients. There were also acquittals. The sentencing decision and reports about it show the link between professional knowledge, trust and tax refunds to which recipients were not entitled.
Clients seeking a tax professional may see previous employment at the Tax Authority as an advantage: someone who knows the system, its requirements and how it works. In the case of accountant Erez Mins, that background took on a different meaning. The publicly accessible part of the sentencing decision describes the use of knowledge he acquired as an accountant, including during his employment at the Tax Authority, to defraud the authority.
Mins worked at the Tax Authority until 2003 and later practised as an independent accountant. Following an evidentiary trial, he was convicted of tax offences relating to both his own activities and his clients. The sentence was handed down on 7 October 2026 at the Petah Tikva Magistrates' Court, in criminal case 32299-09-19, by Judge Dror Kleitman. Reports about the decision state that he received 18 months of actual imprisonment and a fine of NIS 75,000.
The story also requires attention to the other side of the trial's outcome: Mins was acquitted on several counts, and his lawyer emphasised the gap between the original indictment and the result. The convictions, acquittals and disputed claims must be presented together. His current professional status and the status of any possible appeal were not verified in this review.
Sources: Psakdin · Bizportal · Globes
The returns he filed for himself and for others
The opening of the sentencing decision lists convictions for offences including omitting income, providing false information and making false entries intended to evade tax or help another person evade it. The accessible text attributes to conduct between 2005 and 2015 offences under the Income Tax Ordinance involving NIS 1,119,144 and, separately, VAT offences involving NIS 16,818. These are the amounts stated in the document; they should not be replaced with another estimate of loss.
According to Bizportal, some convictions concerned reducing Mins's reported income for 2011 and 2013 through a forged invoice, false entries, a reported office rental and a fictitious bad debt. The report also describes client returns that produced tax refunds to which the clients were not entitled. His fees were calculated as a proportion of the refund, so a larger refund also had financial value for the accountant.
A client's invoice became the accountant's expense
Posta gives an example from the counts on which he was convicted: a bakery owner supplied Mins with bookkeeping records as part of his work for her. According to the report, he used an invoice book that remained in his possession, forged her signature and issued an invoice for NIS 50,000 for organising conferences. He used the invoice to record a business expense and deduct input VAT.
This illustrates a mechanism in which a document belonging to one business is used to present an expense in another. These details are based on journalistic reporting because the full pages describing them in the sentencing decision were not obtained. The client's name and details unnecessary to understanding the mechanism are omitted from this article.
Sources: Posta
When a Tax Authority background increases clients' trust
Globes reports that the judge referred to client testimony that Mins's previous work as a tax inspector increased their trust in him. It also describes a video of a marketing meeting shown at trial, in which he boasted about knowing how the system worked and its weaknesses. The video itself was neither located nor viewed during preparation of this article.
According to the report, the court also addressed the harm to clients who were suspected of offences, questioned and subjected to searches of their homes. A client's mention in proceedings does not make that person an offender. This article does not attribute guilt to all of Mins's clients and does not name them.
Sources: Globes
The acquittals are part of the story too
The accessible part of the sentencing decision stresses that Mins was acquitted on several counts involving various clients and documents. The entire indictment therefore cannot be presented as having been proved. This article includes only details linked to convictions in the sources reviewed, alongside the acquittals.
In a response published by Posta, defence lawyer Igor Yutkin said his client had been acquitted of a significant proportion of the charges. He emphasised the narrowing of the indictment, the court's findings about the state's conduct in parts of the case and the fact that the sentence was lower than requested. He said he would consider an appeal after studying the sentencing decision. This was a response published in the media; no response was received directly by this website.
The sentence and the checks still outstanding
Bizportal and Posta report 18 months in prison and a fine of NIS 75,000. According to those reports, payment of the civil tax assessment to remedy the tax default and his personal circumstances were also taken into account. Payment of the assessment is separate from the criminal fine and does not establish that the fine has already been paid or that he has begun serving the prison term.
As of 15 October 2026, this review had not located a complete, openly accessible copy of the sentencing decision. The accessible section on Psakdin was read and cross-checked against media reports. It was not verified whether an appeal had been filed, a stay of execution granted or a disciplinary decision made. Mention of a possible appeal is not proof that one was filed, and a criminal conviction does not itself establish suspension or revocation of a professional licence.
This article was prepared with AI assistance using the publicly accessible part of the sentencing decision and public reporting. Investigation materials were not reviewed, the video mentioned in reporting was not viewed, and no direct responses were obtained during preparation.