The defense method, the first transfer of the money was made from the defendant's account, but this is not his money, but rather a loan that Yehezkel made to Ben-Eliezer. It was claimed that close to the date of the transfer of the funds, Yehezkel (a resident of the United States), who frequently used the defendant to transfer legitimate funds to Israeli entities, asked to transfer the funds to Ben-Eliezer through the defendant's account, and the defendant acted accordingly.
(c) The activity of B&E, the scope of the assistance provided to it by Ben-Eliezer, the significance of the assistance for the company's activities, and the significance of the assistance for the defendant
There is no dispute that at a certain point in time Ben-Eliezer assisted B&E in obtaining entry visas to Egypt, and there is no dispute that a few years later, the defendant transferred to Ben-Eliezer's account the sum of the money that was the subject of the second transfer – NIS 500,000.
The dispute in this arena will focus on the scope of the assistance that Ben-Eliezer provided to B&E, its significance for its activity and economic strength, and the significance of that assistance for the defendant.
According to the method of prosecution, Ben-Eliezer's assistance in obtaining the visas was on a considerable scale (according to the indictment, from the date it was given in 2007, and continuously – "whenever necessary") and this assistance benefited B&E significantly and, in fact, saved it from collapse. Given the fact that the defendant held 25% of the company's shares, and his brother also held a share of the ownership (and was even employed by the company), it was argued that the assistance that Ben-Eliezer provided to the company should be regarded as assistance granted to the defendant, with all that this entails.
The defense method, those actions taken by Ben-Eliezer were marginal actions in relation to a company in which the defendant's interest was negligible, and in any case those actions, which were carried out years before the second transfer, did not constitute a motive, even marginal, for the transfer of the funds.