(d) The question of the existence of a causal connection between the assistance provided by Ben-Eliezer and the second transfer of funds
According to the prosecution, the significant assistance that Ben-Eliezer provided to B&A and accordingly to the defendant, constituted the "motive" for the transfer of the funds from the defendant to Ben-Eliezer. At the time of the transfer of the funds, it is claimed, the defendant took into account Ben-Eliezer's assistance to the company, and thanked him for it, in addition to his desire that Ben-Eliezer would usually be biased towards him.
The defense method, The loan was given for purely friendly reasons, in light of Ben-Eliezer's request for assistance in purchasing an apartment that would suit his medical condition and difficulties, and in view of the desire of the defendant, his friend in heart and soul, to assist him in realizing his wishes. It was argued that the defendant had no future economic interest in maintaining his friendship with Ben-Eliezer or that involved gratitude for actions Ben-Eliezer had performed in the past for B&E.
(e) The alleged bribe demand made by Ben-Eliezer to Yehuda Tzadik in the amount of NIS 1,200,000
This alleged fact is a clear remnant of the original indictment that was filed in the proceeding, when Ben-Eliezer was alive, since the offense embodied in the alleged facts was attributed Exclusively Ben-Eliezer.
Although testimonies were heard on this matter, including the testimony of Yehuda Tzadik, and the parties addressed the issue in their summaries, I did not see how the decision on this issue could contribute to the decision of the offenses attributed to the defendant.
I will therefore suffice with the following comments: (a) Ben-Eliezer's request to the defendant in order to provide him (Ben-Eliezer) with a loan in an additional amount; Including by contacting friends, was stated by the defendant in his interrogation, on his own initiative, and without the interrogators having any indication of that demand (P/6A, p. 26, s. 33); (b) The defendant described how he approached his friend and partner in some of his business, Yehuda Tzadik, also a wealthy man, who agreed to transfer money to Ben-Eliezer, but stipulated that the money would be transferred to the defendant, and he would be the one to transfer it to Ben-Eliezer. A guarantee will even be given in the form of a mortgage on Ben-Eliezer's house ; (c) Given Yehuda Tzadik's position, and even though Tzadik transferred a check to the defendant for the full amount, The indictment stated that "Defendant 3 kept the check for several days, but in the end they returned it to Yehuda Tzadik and did not transfer it to Ben-Eliezer despite Ben-Eliezer's repeated requests"; (d) The defendant described in his interrogation with the police and in his testimony that Ben-Eliezer's application for an additional loan (in addition to the one he himself had made for him on January 22, 2012) was explained as a desire to meet the advance payment, but when it became clear that it was not possible to set the mortgage on the house (the condition set by Tzadik in the timetables in which the money was required), he decided not to transfer to Ben-Eliezer an amount that was not his own.