"About 5-6 years ago, Roy came to me and told me that his partner/friend in the United States wanted to give a loan - help Fouad Ben-Eliezer, and he doesn't have money in Israel, so he asked me and I gave him the money.
- How did you do it? By check, by transfer, by cash?
- I transferred to Roy 250 - 260 thousand NIS.
- How did you do it, by bank transfer, by check, by cash?
- It was from my personal account at Discount Bank.
- Did he give you the money back?
- In my consideration with Roy, within about a year he returned the money to me. Another example, which shows the relationship between friendship and against logic – about a year ago, less than a year ago, I was in Miami with Roy, and suddenly a cockroach came to me saying that there was no explanation, that I was buying an apartment in Miami, and that the first payment of $40,000, because Roy was a resident of the United States and had money, he paid on my behalf. Two weeks ago I had to pay for the apartment there, so instead of the whole process of sending a map from Israel and back, Roy gave me two checks." (Prov. p. 1654, s. 9).
In his testimony, Stoller also referred to the plaintiff's question as to how it is possible that a wealthy person as a defendant needed his assistance in providing a loan for the purpose of transferring it to Ben-Eliezer, and noted: "... Most of his business is abroad and not in Israel. And at the time, he probably didn't have 260,000 shekels. It can happen to me too. There is a difference between a cash-rich person. I can also have no cash at the end of the month and at the end of the next month I will have income. I'm not always fluid" (Prov. p. 1656, s. 24).
Stoller also described that over the years there has been a reckoning between them in a number of channels, a calculation that is also relevant to the question of how the sum was returned.
- I found no real reason to doubt Stoller's testimony, which described how, in real time, he was asked by the defendant to lend him the sum of NIS 260,000 in light of Yehezkel's request and his desire to help Ben-Eliezer. The questions raised by the prosecution in its summaries, as well as the reference to Stoller's reply in relation to a legal proceeding in which he is involved in a family court (which is not of the same kind) are far from convincing, and certainly do not weaken the strength of his positive version of the main matter about which he testified.