Even if the prosecution's argument is correct, and the defendant repeatedly asked Yehuda Tzadik to make the loan available to Ben-Eliezer, in this circumstance there is no valuable contribution to a factual determination, since in any case the defendant admitted that he transferred NIS 500,000 of his own money to Ben-Eliezer, and the issue of the "motive" is up for decision in this context. In the same way, it is possible to relate to the defense's argument, according to which the very return of the check to Yehuda Tzadik should be regarded as, as an additional indication of the claim that the defendant did not have any intention of bribery, otherwise he would have taken care to transfer this sum to Ben-Eliezer as well.
- Given the conclusion that the fifth arena of the dispute (Ben-Eliezer's demand for bribes, which is not attributed to the defendant) does not contribute to the decision, it therefore seems that a decision should be made in four arenas as follows: (a) the strength of the friendship between Ben-Eliezer and the defendant; (b) the person behind the first transfer of funds; (c) the activity of B&E and the scope of the assistance granted to it and its significance; (d) The connection between Ben-Eliezer's assistance and the second transfer of funds.
Even before deciding on the various arenas of dispute, it is necessary to address the events that accompanied the defendant's first version when he was interrogated in Lahav Unit 433, a version that remained firm and consistent even during the trial itself.
As a starting point for the hearing, I will note that the defendant confessed, even before the beginning of his interrogation, that he had transferred NIS 500,000 to Ben-Eliezer, and that the circumstances of his confession, as well as his interrogation, were at the center of the proceeding and were thoroughly clarified.
About Defendant 3, His Character and the Conduct of His First Interrogation