Galman and Vinokur in the Milwidsky Case: LAHAV 433 Examines Pressure on a Complainant

The investigation surrounding Knesset member Hanoch Milwidsky moved beyond the lawmaker himself. After complainant “A” gave testimony, LAHAV 433 began examining who may have helped turn her words into a document useful to people around Kabbalah La'Am.

On July 25, 2025, the LAHAV 433 investigative unit summoned attorney Tzvi Galman and Dr. Eli Vinokur for questioning on suspicion of obstruction of justice and inducing a witness to give false testimony. On July 27, The Seventh Eye and Shakuf reported that they were two additional suspects in the Milwidsky case. Ynet wrote that the covert investigation began about two years earlier and moved into the open phase only after the suspicions had “ripened.” N12 / Mako connected the same node to A.'s testimony about a false affidavit and the hotel episode.

The question here is procedural. Police are examining whether a lawyer, a translator, and movement insiders placed a complainant in a setting where her testimony could be refitted for court.

What LAHAV 433 Is Examining

According to Ynet and other outlets, complainant “A” was expected to appear in a proceeding connected to a defamation suit where Kabbalah La'Am’s interests were represented by a legal team close to the movement. The police suspicion is that pressure may have been applied at that point to produce a text that would soften allegations and work as a court document.

Israel Hayom described the suspicion more specifically: Galman, according to the investigative version, was connected to the false affidavit, while Vinokur was connected to pressure on the complainant to sign that affidavit. The same report said police were checking both men’s involvement in bringing A. to Israel after her earlier complaint of sexual abuse by the head of the association.

The suspicion is not about an “unsuccessful consultation.” Police are examining whether the meeting was used to produce a convenient affidavit: a witness arrives with her story and leaves with a document that works against her and for the organization.

The full chronology of complainant “A” is handled in the Olesya and Milwidsky article. The broader pattern of pressure on testimony is examined separately in the article on silenced testimonies. Here the focus stays with the Galman-Vinokur investigative node.

Two Roles: Lawyer and Translator

The roles of the two questioned men differ. Galman, under the police suspicion, may have handled the legal form: the office, the consultation, the affidavit text, and its later procedural usefulness. In The Seventh Eye, he is described as an attorney who for years handled the movement’s lawsuits against journalists, media outlets, and organizations that assist victims of cults.

Ynet added that Galman is suspected of signing a false affidavit, while Vinokur is suspected of pushing A. toward false testimony. Vinokur matters in this node as the person who, according to Rafaeli’s affidavit as recounted by The Seventh Eye, was present at A.'s briefing and translated explanations into Russian. His academic title and family background are handled in the Eli Vinokur profile. For this investigative node, one fact is enough: police are examining whether translation was part of pressure rather than a neutral service.

Galman denies wrongdoing. In his response quoted by The Seventh Eye, he said he acted professionally, gave the police documents, and believes that “there is no stain on my work.” Vinokur, according to the same outlet, did not respond after his questioning.

Why Sexual-Offense Suspicions Remain Central

The widening circle of suspects does not change the central figure in the case: Hanoch Milwidsky. The complainant accuses him of involvement in pressure on a witness and of rape that, according to her account, took place after the false testimony. On July 25, Ynet reported that investigators directly presented Milwidsky with that suspicion during questioning.

Possible obstruction of justice here sits inside the main criminal substance of the case. If a witness was pressured to change testimony, it happened around a case where police suspicion also includes pressure, a false affidavit, and a sexual offense.

At this stage, police have not publicly linked Galman or Vinokur to direct participation in sexual offenses. Their procedural risk is different: investigators are examining whether they served the pressure on the complainant in a case where the central suspect already faced grave allegations.

Boundary of What Is Known

Known: LAHAV 433 questioned Galman and Vinokur; their names were published as additional suspects; sources link the questioning to the complainant’s affidavit and to the Kabbalah La'Am proceeding. It is also known that Galman denies violating professional rules.

Unknown: whether the investigation will confirm that version, whether charges will be filed, and how police will assess each man’s role. This boundary matters: suspicion is not a verdict, but LAHAV 433 questioning already moves the story out of rumor and internal movement conflict.

If the police version is confirmed, the issue will not be a private meeting in a lawyer’s office. It will be how people with professional roles may have taken part in rewriting a complainant’s testimony around the interests of a closed organization.