Bnei Baruch power map: who is who around Laitman

This page proves nothing anew. It gathers into one map the figures and nodes the dossier covers separately: the leader, his relatives in the managing nonprofits, the lawyers and public defenders, the money structures, the political ties and the people whose testimony became the basis of the investigation. Each node is a link to the material where it is shown with sources.

Beside each layer sits the type of evidence — so it is clear what a given link rests on: a court ruling, a police action, a media report, a person’s testimony, an internal document of the movement, or editorial analysis. How these types map onto the four evidence levels is explained on the «Dossier methodology and help for those affected» page.

The leader

Michael Laitman is the founder and head of Bnei Baruch. Everything else runs from him: he builds the figure of the teacher as a channel to the Creator («The Creator speaks through the teacher»), sets the doctrine on women in his own words on video (women in Laitman’s teaching), and remains the figure whose surrounding testimonies of abuse never turned into a real investigation (silenced testimonies). The overall map of the movement is in the overview article.

Type of evidence: video recordings of lectures, testimony, media reports, editorial analysis.

The family

Laitman’s relatives appear not on stage but in the founding records of the nonprofits through which the movement’s money runs — this is visible in the financial framework. In parallel the movement keeps a religious façade at odds with what goes on inside (the religious façade).

Type of evidence: internal documents and registration data of the amutot, the Registrar of Nonprofits audit, media reports.

The legal and public apparatus

Hanoch Milwidsky is a lawyer for the movement and a member of the Knesset; he was questioned by Lahav 433 on suspicion, and the movement’s lawsuits against critics were dismissed by the courts, which noted signs of a SLAPP (the movement’s litigation machine, the Olesya/A. and Milwidsky node, why the complainant was not called to testify). Alongside them is Eli Vinokur, whose academic standing works for the movement’s legitimacy, and Gelman: both were questioned in the same case (Vinokur, Gelman and Vinokur: the investigative node).

Type of evidence: court rulings on the lawsuits, police actions (suspicion, questionings), media reports.

Translation, media and intermediaries

Translation and chaperoning in the movement work as a lever: whoever translates and guides shapes the wording and decides who gets access to the leader. One internal document shows that under the heading of a “secret translation” a payment link was sent out (the «secret translation» document). How a participant’s private doubt is turned into an internal administrative loop is in the «How do we live now?» correspondence.

Type of evidence: internal documents and correspondence supplied by participants.

Money: the nonprofits and reporting

The finances rest on a network of amutot with a turnover in the millions; the Registrar of Nonprofits audit noted reporting failures, and an internal document on the communal meals revealed a hidden surplus of 422,826 shekels under the language of “care” (the financial framework, the document on the meals). The contrast between the labor and tithes of the rank and file and the comfort of the top is shown separately (the privileges of the top), as is the informal hierarchy of access to the leader (Madam Aborina).

Type of evidence: internal financial documents, a state regulator’s audit, editorial analysis.

Political and state ties

Here the network reaches beyond the movement. The 50-million bill and the seat on the Knesset Finance Committee are in the piece on the state resource. A separate staffing case is the support for Israel Katz and the appointment of Efrat Minuchin (Katz, Minuchin and state posts). The family-political circle around Gilad Shadmon and the entry of Laitman’s former secretary Hagit Telem onto a municipal list are covered in the piece on the family cover.

Type of evidence: media reports, public appointments and staffing records.

Former participants and witnesses

The investigation rests on particular people. Katya Sukhova described years of dependence and threats against her family (Katya’s testimony). Mona spoke of sixteen years inside and the pressure after she left (Mona’s testimony). “Olesya”/A. is the node of testimony around Milwidsky (Olesya/A.'s account). Why these voices never came together into a real investigation of Laitman is explained in the central piece. A separate, heavy block on child safety and a closed police case is set out in the piece on the AMI case.

Type of evidence: testimony from former participants, corroborated by media reports.

How it adds up to a pattern

The nodes above are not a scattering of separate stories. How they add up to the markers of a destructive group (control of time, information, money, marriage, the punishment of those who leave) is gathered in the comparison with specialists’ criteria. Every outside publication, with numbers and verification status, is in the source library.