Lawyer, accountant and former senior tax official: Shimon Cohen and the trusts allegedly invented after the fact
Lawyer and accountant Shimon Cohen, a former senior Tax Authority official, is charged with tax offences, forgery and money laundering. The prosecution's claims about trusts, money in Switzerland and the connection to David Appel, alongside the defence response.
What happens when someone who knows the tax system from the inside faces charges of concealing income? The Shimon Cohen case places that question at the intersection of public service, law and accountancy. Cohen is a lawyer and accountant who served as head of professional divisions and acting deputy director for professional affairs at the Tax Authority. He later operated through a private tax law firm.
On 1 September 2026, the prosecution announced that an indictment had been filed against him, four other individuals and three companies in the Tel Aviv District Court. Its statement alleges that several schemes used fictitious trusts and false documents to disguise income and assets. The allegations include a deed allegedly created in 2016 but presented as dating from 2005, an unreported cash fee of USD 300,000 and approximately EUR 8.45 million received in a company account in Switzerland without reporting it to the tax authorities.
Behind the figures lies a dispute not resolved in the sources reviewed: did the arrangements presented to the authorities reflect reality, or were they designed to create a different appearance? Cohen's lawyers reject the indictment and say it has no basis. These are charges, not a conviction, and all defendants are presumed innocent.
Sources: משרד המשפטים / Ministry of Justice · Calcalist
Professional knowledge is central to the story
The prosecution's statement confirms Cohen's dual professional background and his former senior Tax Authority positions. It also names lawyer Orly Tal, a former Tax Authority employee who later worked at his firm. Zvi Shpatz, Haim Selter and David Appel were charged alongside them. The three corporate defendants are Shimon Cohen Lawyers Ltd., Cohen Family Assets Ltd. and Shimon Cohen Management Services Ltd. (the first and third names are translated from Hebrew).
The public interest in the case lies in the expertise accumulated both inside the system and in representing clients before it. Moving into private practice is not evidence of an offence. The prosecution's claims concern particular alleged acts: when documents were created, who established trusts, asset values and the reporting of money received. These matters require proof; guilt cannot be inferred from a previous position.
Sources: משרד המשפטים / Ministry of Justice
The trust allegedly created in 2016 and backdated to 2005
In the matter involving Zvi Shpatz, the prosecution describes an attempt to present his overseas assets and income as held in a trust established years earlier by a foreign resident. According to the statement, the prosecution alleges that the trust was fabricated in 2016 and its deed forged to appear to have been executed in 2005. Haim Selter was allegedly presented as the settlor and signed the deed in exchange for USD 15,000 paid by Shpatz.
The statement further alleges that assets were presented to the Tax Authority as worth approximately USD 20 million, whereas the prosecution says their value was about half that amount. It also attributes to Tal and Shpatz the forgery of documents in an earlier voluntary disclosure process and an attempt to induce another person to sign false documents and an affidavit, to make a foreign company appear to have been controlled and managed outside Israel.
The focus is the gap between what was presented to the authority and what the prosecution says actually happened. A trust or overseas activity is not, by itself, evidence of an offence. Here, the allegation is that the documents and facts underlying the tax treatment were false.
Sources: משרד המשפטים / Ministry of Justice
Another trust and a USD 300,000 cash fee
In another matter, according to the prosecution's statement, Cohen presented a trust as having been established in 1990 to regularise clients' overseas assets and income that had not been lawfully reported. The prosecution alleges that this trust was also fictitious and that assets were presented as worth approximately GBP 20 million although, in its account, they were worth less than half that amount.
The allegation against Cohen also concerns his own income: the statement says he received USD 300,000 in cash for services relating to that trust and did not report it. The value of clients' assets, the service provider's alleged income and any possible tax shortfall must be distinguished. They are different figures and should not be added together.
Sources: משרד המשפטים / Ministry of Justice
The major transaction, the Swiss account and money for David Appel
A further matter concerns a 2018 sale of holdings in a foreign company. The prosecution's statement gives consideration of approximately EUR 563.5 million in a transaction in which Cohen and Appel acted as intermediaries. This is the size of the transaction described, not a sum alleged to have been stolen or an amount of unpaid tax.
According to the same statement, Cohen received approximately EUR 8.45 million for brokerage and additional services. The money went to a Swiss bank account of a foreign company he controlled and, according to the indictment as summarised, was not reported to the tax authorities. The prosecution alleges that Appel, who was then subject to a receivership order, sought part of the commission and that sham loan agreements were used to transfer millions of shekels to him through family members, without reporting to the Official Receiver or the tax authorities.
The existence of a Swiss bank account does not prove an offence. The indictment, as summarised in the official statement, focuses on non-reporting and agreements the prosecution alleges were false. This article does not attribute an offence to family members merely because they were mentioned as a route for transferring funds.
Sources: משרד המשפטים / Ministry of Justice
The charges against Cohen and what the figures mean
According to the official statement, Cohen faces charges including tax offences and helping others evade tax, forgery and use of a forged document in aggravated circumstances, helping conceal a debtor's assets, money laundering and false entries in corporate documents. The statement describes alleged money laundering involving approximately NIS 50 million, including through overseas companies and accounts, false loan agreements and journal entries, and investments in assets.
Not every offence should be attributed to every defendant. The statement sets out different offences and alleged roles for each. Its general reference to amounts reaching hundreds of millions of shekels is also no substitute for identifying the income, assets and tax involved in each count. This article does not present that general scale as a theft amount or a tax debt established by a judgment.
Sources: משרד המשפטים / Ministry of Justice
The defence response and the limits of what can currently be established
Calcalist and ynet published a response on behalf of Cohen's lawyers, Ravit Tzemach and Amit Nir. In translation from Hebrew: “This is a particularly absurd indictment, with no real basis, which will collapse in court.” This response was published in the media and was not given directly to this website. No new approach was made to the defendants or their lawyers while preparing the article.
As of the review on 15 October 2026, the official source located was the prosecution's statement of 1 September. The public search did not locate a verdict in this trusts case. That does not fully establish the case's current status, and hearing dates and subsequent decisions were not verified against the court file.
The full indictment appears in the News1 document catalogue, but the access located requires a subscription; it was not downloaded or reviewed in full. The account of the charges here therefore relies on the prosecution's statement and is presented as its version. Cohen's current licences in law and accountancy were not verified either. This article provides no basis for stating that he is suspended or unauthorised to practise either profession.
The public question raised by the case is how authorities examine complex documents and arrangements submitted by experts who know the tax system well. The criminal answer depends on evidence and the court's judgment. Until then, each claim should be read with its source, tax planning distinguished from alleged fraud, and the presumption of innocence maintained.
Sources: Calcalist · ynet · משרד המשפטים / Ministry of Justice
This article was prepared with AI assistance. The review covered the prosecution's statement and public reporting. The full indictment and investigation materials were not available for review during preparation.