Arson Charges Filed Against Supermarket Employee in Bnei Brak

Overview of Incident

A serious indictment has been lodged in the Tel Aviv District Court against a 51-year-old resident of Bnei Brak, who worked at the local “Oshad Ad” supermarket. The charges stem from his involvement in setting fire to the security booth on the supermarket premises. The event took place after the employee, who had consumed alcoholic beverages during his shift, refused to leave the property upon the request of his supervisor.

Details of the Allegations

According to the indictment, the incident occurred on [date of incident], shortly after the defendant completed his morning shift around 4:00 PM. Instead of leaving the supermarket, he reportedly stayed on the premises, consuming drinks without making any payment. When requested by the floor manager to exit the store at approximately 6:00 PM, he declined to do so.

The situation escalated when he moved to the second floor of the supermarket and began throwing various food items down to the first floor, creating chaos in the establishment. After being asked again to vacate the premises, the defendant exited the building but remained near the entrance beside the security booth.

Arson Incident

At that point, the indictment claims, he made the decision to ignite the security booth. He allegedly used a lighter to set a piece of paper on fire and then threw the burning paper into the booth, which ultimately resulted in the complete destruction of the structure.

This indictment marks the second time the individual has faced charges, as a prior indictment was dismissed in April 2024 due to his failure to appear for court proceedings.

Legal Implications

The charge of arson is a severe offense that carries significant legal consequences. The authorities are likely to take the matter seriously given the circumstances of the incident and the potential danger posed to public safety.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities employees hold, particularly concerning their behavior after hours on workplace property. Further developments in this case will be watched closely as it unfolds in court