Wahba — Supreme Court refused to waive late-payment charges on victim compensation

Case
Shimon Wahba v. State of Israel
Court
Supreme Court of Israel (Israel)
Date Decided
July 23, 2026
Citation
CrimA 3834/10
Topics
Victim Compensation, Late-Payment Charges, Criminal Sentencing, Fine Collection

Background

Shimon Wahba was convicted in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court of several offenses, principally murder. In 2010, the court sentenced him to life imprisonment plus six consecutive years and ordered him to pay NIS 150,000 in compensation to the deceased victim’s family under Section 77 of the Penal Law. The Supreme Court partly allowed his appeal in 2013 by changing the statutory basis of the murder conviction, but left the sentence and compensation order unchanged.

In April 2026, Wahba asked the Supreme Court to waive the late-payment additions that had accumulated because he had paid only a few thousand shekels. He said that the debt had grown to approximately NIS 600,000 and attributed his nonpayment to poverty, lack of assets or family support, his lengthy imprisonment from a young age, and limited prison employment opportunities. The State and the victim’s family opposed the request, emphasizing his prolonged inaction, failure to comply with a payment plan, and the family’s continuing financial and personal harm. Wahba did not support his application with the affidavit required by Section 69(b) of the Penal Law.

The Court’s Holding

The Supreme Court unanimously denied the application. It held that Section 69(a) permits a court to waive all or part of the late-payment additions on victim compensation only when satisfied that reasonable grounds existed for failing to pay on time. Relevant considerations include the applicant’s responsibility for the nonpayment and whether the circumstances suggest evasion of the judgment. Although such an application ordinarily belongs before the sentencing court, the Supreme Court addressed the merits because Wahba’s original notice of appeal was directed at both conviction and sentence, all members of the District Court panel had retired, and procedural efficiency favored resolving the matter.

The Court found no reasonable justification for Wahba’s conduct. He waited approximately 11 years before first seeking an installment arrangement, paid only a small fraction of the compensation, failed to comply even partially with the arrangement granted in 2022, and never sought a stay of payment. Collection-center records also showed deposits from his family and prison employment, undermining his unsupported assertion that he had no family assistance. His omission of those decisions from his application further weighed against him.

The Court held that imprisonment from a young age for a lengthy term does not, by itself, constitute a reasonable ground for nonpayment; accepting that proposition would broadly exempt people serving long sentences for serious crimes from late-payment additions. Although the accumulated additions would impose a substantial burden, that consideration did not outweigh Wahba’s years of default, the harm caused by his offense, and the victim family’s position. The Court also declined to hold a hearing and noted that the missing affidavit alone could have justified striking the application.

Key Takeaways

  • Late-payment additions on criminal victim-compensation awards may be waived only upon a supported showing of reasonable grounds for untimely payment.
  • Poverty or lengthy imprisonment is not enough by itself, particularly when the applicant delayed seeking relief, violated a payment plan, and failed to seek a stay.
  • Courts may consider the applicant’s payment history, candor, possible evasion, the underlying harm, and the victim’s position.

Why It Matters

The decision confirms that Israeli courts treat victim-compensation obligations as immediately payable and expect defendants facing genuine hardship to act promptly through available collection and judicial procedures. Allowing a debt to accumulate for years and later relying on incarceration or financial hardship will ordinarily be insufficient.

The ruling also illustrates the evidentiary importance of a complete affidavit and full disclosure of collection records. Applicants seeking equitable relief from late-payment additions must substantiate their finances and demonstrate sustained, good-faith efforts to comply.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top