The bestowal
- According to the indictment, on September 25, 2011, Ben-Eliezer approached the defendant and asked him for a sum of money in the amount of $400,000 (NIS 1,490,000), and the defendant complied with his request. This sum was transferred on September 26, 2011 by bank transfer from an account in a Swiss bank in the defendant's name to Ben-Eliezer's account at Discount Bank (hereinafter – Transferring the money to Ben-Eliezer).
According to the prosecution, the transfer of the money to Ben-Eliezer should be viewed as a bribe that Ben-Eliezer and the defendant concealed in order to be seen as a "loan". As part of the improper camouflage activities, and on September 25, 2011, a loan agreement was signed for the purchase of a property in Ness Ziona (hereinafter, respectively). The Loan Agreement; The Field in Ness Ziona), according to which the defendant will provide Ben-Eliezer with the loan, subject to and against receipt of an undertaking to register a warning note in favor of the defendant on the plot in Ness Ziona. According to the loan agreement, the interest rate that the loan will bear will be 0% and its repayment date is set for six months from the date of the agreement or until the sale of the lot, whichever comes first.
In practice, the indictment alleges, the contractual stipulations included in the loan agreement were fictitious, since at the time the loan agreement was signed, the plot in Ness Ziona had already been purchased, and the money received from the defendant was used to purchase a house in Jaffa for Ben-Eliezer (which he purchased on November 24, 2011 for NIS 8,450,556, hereinafter – The House in Jaffa).
It was further argued that contrary to the terms of the loan agreement, Ben-Eliezer did not register a warning note in favor of the defendant, the loan was not repaid on the repayment dates set out in the agreement, and the defendant did not demand the repayment of the debt until the date of the opening of the investigation.
According to the indictment, the loan agreement was intended to allow Ben-Eliezer to explain to the Israeli authorities the receipt of the bribe money, if necessary, but until the date of the opening of the investigation, Ben-Eliezer had not presented the loan agreement to anyone. The loan that was not collected, and the defendant's ability to ask Ben-Eliezer for the repayment of the money at any time, created Ben-Eliezer's dependence on the defendant, and maintained the relationship of bribery between them for an indefinite period.
- According to the prosecution, and beyond the claim that the loan agreement should be viewed as a clear indication of the fact that it is bribery money, the defendant's action in creating the loan mechanism intended to conceal the fact that it is bribe money, constitutes an action with prohibited property as defined in the Prohibition of Money Laundering Law, 5760-2000 (hereinafter – Prohibition of Money Laundering Law) for this was done in order to conceal or disguise the origin of the money, the identity of the owners of the rights therein, its location, its movements, or the taking of action therein.
The economic interests that underpinned the transfer of the funds, and the actions carried out by Ben-Eliezer on behalf of the defendant
- According to the indictment, the transfer of the money to Ben-Eliezer was carried out as part of a relationship full of economic interests, which was referred to by the prosecution as a "give and take" relationship, with Ben-Eliezer "providing the goods" and helping to promote the defendant's economic interests.
According to the indictment and within the framework of the self-interested friendship that was forged between Ben-Eliezer and the defendant, it is possible to point to the Four Alleged Factual Systems, which are based on economic interests, from which the conclusion regarding the nature of the connection and the improper nature of the transfer of the money will be drawn.