The transfer of a huge sum of money to Ben-Eliezer, a serving public figure, was carried out in September 2011, against the background of the defendant's awareness and understanding as detailed above, and while the tax proceedings that were conducted with the Tax Authority are gaining momentum, leading to appeal proceedings in the District Court.
It was held that the transfer of a gift in the form of a huge sum to a public figure creates an enormous obligation on his part, and can be viewed as one that constitutes an evidentiary indication of the existence of an improper purpose on the part of the giver of the gift.
The transfer of the money was backed up by a "loan agreement" signed by the defendant and Ben-Eliezer, but it was proven that there was a gap between the data detailed in the agreement and the reality already at the time it was signed, a gap that deepened as time passed, and when it became clear that the loan was not being repaid within the timetable set out in the agreement (or at all), no demand was presented on the part of the defendant, and Ben-Eliezer did not pay linkage differentials and arrears interest. The explanations provided by the defendant in the context of the gaps found were rejected, since they were not convincing enough.
It was held that the discrepancies between the agreement and reality should be viewed as a significant evidentiary indication of the existence of an improper purpose on the part of the grantor, and that the non-return of the money preserved Ben-Eliezer's dependence on the defendant.
It was proven that during the meetings with one of his attorneys in the tax proceeding in 2013, the defendant brought up Ben-Eliezer's name as a potential witness, without claiming that he had made a "preliminary inquiry" with him about his willingness to testify, and it was determined that this action could be seen as reflecting the defendant's confidence that Ben-Eliezer, a busy man by all accounts, would cooperate in the submission of an affidavit and later in the testimony in the legal proceeding. It was further determined that the consideration of "the aura surrounding Ben-Eliezer" spilled over into the considerations that underpinned Ben-Eliezer's name as a potential witness, and ultimately led to the submission of the affidavit and his testimony, even if the final decision that he would testify was made by the counsel in the tax appeal.