Even if a loan of a similar magnitude should not be underestimated (as Yechezkel testified), it is clear that when we are dealing with a loan given by a person in Yechezkel's financial situation, it is possible to understand his inability to remember exactly what amount was transferred.
In other words, Yehezkel's inability to accurately measure the amount of the loan should not be examined through the glasses of a person whose money does not reside in his residence, and who checks and calculates every expense, but rather through the glasses of a person whose personal monthly expenses were estimated at $300,000, and through the glasses of someone who confirmed in court that he pays $100,000 a month in rent for a house in an upscale neighborhood in California where his children live.
Consideration should also be given to the fact that despite meticulous examinations conducted in relation to Ben-Eliezer's bank accounts during the relevant period, no evidence was presented of the transfer of funds in a similar amount, so that if Yehezkel admitted that he made sure to transfer a significant sum of money to Ben-Eliezer, and this was not the same NIS 260,000 as the prosecution claims, it would have been expected that evidence would be presented showing that in Ben-Eliezer's account, or of someone on his behalf, a similar sum other than NIS 260,000 was deposited, and such evidence was not presented.
I will also mention that according to the defendant's testimony, Dover was in the amount of $60,000-70,000.
(c) Lack of sufficient explanation for the fact that Ben-Eliezer denied contacting him with a loan request - Although Ben-Eliezer's versions were not part of the trial, the prosecution noted in its summaries, in an attempt to circumvent the evidentiary difficulty he faced, that Yehezkel did not have a sufficient explanation for Ben-Eliezer's denial that he had approached him. In this context, the prosecution referred to a question asked by Yehezkel in his initial interrogation, in which she accused him that Ben-Eliezer denied that he had approached him. Even if this is a legitimate question in the cross-examination of a witness in court, this does not legitimize Ben-Eliezer's alleged statements on the evidentiary level. Since it was not possible to use Ben-Eliezer's versions, and these were not presented as evidence in court, it is not possible to construct a statement of one kind or another, which may have been made by Ben-Eliezer. Moreover, and even if we assume that Ben-Eliezer vehemently denied in his interrogation a request for money from Ezekiel, does this mean that Yechezkel is not accurate in his testimony, or is there a more reasonable possibility that the lack of accuracy is related to the other side in the same equation?