Even if, for reasons of caution, I refrain from viewing the non-return of the money as an incriminating indication of the purpose underlying its transfer, insofar as the purpose is proven by other data, it is clear that there is reason in the prosecution's claim that the non-return of the money preserved Ben-Eliezer's dependence on the defendant.
The transfer of the money (and the failure to return it) "bound" Ben-Eliezer, and even if it could be argued that at the point in time at which it was transferred, the full intention to use his testimony was not crystallized, and the defendant acted only in the manner of "send for your father-in-law", the moment the request was made for him to testify (in the opinion of the defendant while raising his name as a potential witness), this can be seen as a "lock" of the causal connection between the gift and the consideration.
The nature and social and economic conduct of the defendant
- During the trial, a large number of witnesses testified on behalf of the defendant about loans, grants and assistance that they received from the defendant for various purposes, some personal, some business, while the defendant for the most part did not insist on drawing up a binding contract, did not insist on repaying the sums within an acceptable schedule, if at all, and did not insist on receiving interest.
See, for example, the testimonies of Jacky Ben-Zaken, Moti Friedman, Aviad Shaywitz, Shimon Mazor, Ephraim Gur, George Aquiliani, Yohanan Kikozashvili and others; See more details of Donations in paragraph 345 of the defense's summaries, as well as in exhibits N/9 and in binder N/11.
On the basis of the above, the defense noted the following:
"... These examples nullify any evidentiary validity/proof relevant to the claim that the loan to Ben-Eliezer is unusual, with regard to Avraham's ordinary conduct. Our eyes see that this is not the case. Our position is that Avraham's personality as it emerges from his past and his way of life testifies to his state of mind in the events that are the subject of this case and indicates his innocence. Avraham, as made clear at the beginning of our discussion, did not grow up in a wealthy family. He made all his fortune with his ten fingers and worked hard throughout his life to help his associates, friends, and family members with sums of hundreds or even millions of dollars as gifts (Sections 407 and 408 of the defense summaries).
- The prosecution was of the opinion that the same evidence presented by the defendant actually showed that the amount of money he transferred to Ben-Eliezer was unusual in scope, and it was argued that the defense failed to show that a sum of money was transferred in circumstances similar to the circumstances of this case. It was argued that most of the loans were business loans and that they do not refute the legal presumption that a gift to a public servant should be acceptable and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
- I saw no point in reviewing the said testimonies in the same resolutions in which they were reviewed in the parties' summaries, and in any case I was not presented with sufficient data that would enable me to determine that the testimony of some of the witnesses was unreliable, as the prosecution believed that it could be determined.
Suffice it to say that the picture that emerges from all the testimonies brought by the defense in the context of the character and economic conduct of the defendant, and it is also consistent with my impression of his character, is that of a generous person, who over many years took a sympathetic approach to requests for support addressed to him, and even helped and donated on his own initiative to many places. It was proven that there were cases in which the defendant gave loans in significant amounts, without interest, without insisting on the repayment of those loans within an acceptable or reasonable schedule.