The fact that the sum of NIS 260,000 does not appear in the various accounting documents is of great significance to me, since, as Yehezkel and the defendant testified, some of the sums were not recorded immediately or at all, and in any case the matter was carried out as part of routine, but not meticulous, conduct in the manner of a request by one of them, and a retroactive update by one of their secretaries (and it can be seen that indeed the vast majority of the various accounting documents were prepared by the secretariats Olga and Orit). I cannot accept the prosecution's argument that since low sums were recorded in the various accounting documents, it is presumed that the two would have indicated even high sums, and certainly a sum of $40,000 to $60,000. Sometimes registration is important in the low amounts (which can be forgotten or "swallowed") and not necessarily in the relatively high amounts.
In this context, see the testimony of the defendant in court:
"... I live a lot of things that are not listed and are not found. If I go with him to the casino now to play poker he can give me $20,000 or $25,000 or I can give him back $20,000, not all things are documented. It is precisely the great things that are not documented because they are not there. And you'll hear more, there are things that you will even understand, it's calculation, maybe at the moment he told me to transfer we already took into account I don't know now, He bought two properties, paid $1.4 million for me, paid me now, a month and a half ago, so it's not everything you think it is. It is precisely the smaller things that are recorded than the big things" (Prov. p. 1471, s. 16).
In the same way, it is possible to relate to the prosecution's argument that the claim of "the defendant as a conduit" should be rejected in light of the fact that Yehezkel held active accounts in Israel (P/142; P/280). Beyond the fact that these were accounts with a low to low level of activity (a fact that actually corroborates the testimonies of Yehezkel and the defendant), it was proven that despite holding bank accounts in Israel, the defendant paid for Yehezkel many payments to entities in Israel.