The indictment alleges that on a Friday, in 2007, the defendant arrived with his partners at the office of Ben-Eliezer, who was serving as Minister of Infrastructures at the time, and asked him to exert his influence among the Egyptian government in order to obtain visas for the company's employees. After the meeting, and at the defendant's request, Ben-Eliezer contacted the Egyptian consul several times, and following these requests, the Egyptian consul renewed the issuance of visas to the company's employees immediately, and whenever necessary, until the outbreak of the Egyptian revolution in January 2011.
It was argued that Ben-Eliezer's actions, as detailed above, significantly benefited the company financially and even saved it from collapse.
The alleged money transfers detailed above from the defendant to Ben-Eliezer were made according to the indictment, because the defendant felt obligated by Ben-Eliezer's actions towards B&E, and in order for Ben-Eliezer to be biased in general, i.e., the prosecution attributes to the defendant a "dual motive" for committing the bribery offense, both in the past (in view of the assistance that Ben-Eliezer provided to B&E) and when he looks to the future from the perspective of "send your bread".
- After examining all the evidence and the parties' summaries, it appears that there are disputes in a number of arenas, and these are:
(a) The Strength of the Friendship between Ben-Eliezer and the Defendant
Although the lawsuit I did not dispute the fact that Ben-Eliezer and the defendant had a friendship relationship that lasted for decades (beginning in the 1980s also according to the indictment), it seems that the strength of the friendship is in some dispute, and taking into account the significance of this fact, I saw fit to rule on this circumstance as well.
(b) The person behind the first transfer of funds (260,000 NIS)
According to the method of prosecution, the first transfer of funds in the amount of NIS 260,000 was made from the defendant's money and personal account, and due to Ben-Eliezer's demand, while the defendant took into account Ben-Eliezer's previous assistance to B&E, and in order for Ben-Eliezer to be generally biased towards him.