The correspondence between Stoller's testimony and the bank statements and the date of the transfer of the funds to the receiver
- It is important to note that Stoller's testimony corresponds to the core of Yehezkel's testimony and the defendant's testimony in court, and more importantly, it is also consistent with the bank statement statements (N/16), which show that the bank transfer from Stoller's account in the sum of NIS 260,000 was made on August 15, 2011, while the first transfer of funds from the defendant's account to the receiver's account was made by the defendant about six days later (August 21, 2011). We are not only dealing with versions that are intertwined with each other, but with those that are reconciled with external evidence.
The Person Behind the First Money Transfer - Summary
- After examining the relevant evidence and all the data presented, I have reached the conclusion that the prosecution did not prove with the required level of certainty that the defendant transferred, from his own money, the sum of NIS 260,000 to Ben-Eliezer. Apart from the fact that the money was transferred from the defendant's account, which is not in dispute, no real evidence was presented that could undermine the three positive testimonies that were heard, from which it emerged that the defendant's account served only as a "conduit" for transferring a loan from Yehezkel to Ben-Eliezer.
The aforementioned conclusion is based on the following data: (a) The lack of a motive for Yehezkel to admit to transferring a significant sum of money to an incumbent public figure, and the fact that his version that this was a loan made at Ben-Eliezer's request, and through the defendant's account, was an immediate and authentic version; (b) The defendant's lack of motive to deny that the money transfer was made with his own money, after a few minutes earlier he had confessed frankly, and on his own initiative, to transferring hundreds of thousands of shekels of his money to Ben-Eliezer; (c) My impression is of the authenticity of the defendant's version, of his desire to be precise and of his sincere efforts to remember the situation that was perceived in his consciousness as a marginal situation. This impression, regarding the authenticity of the defendant's version, is relevant both to his interrogation by the police and to the manner in which he testified in court; (d) The fact that the sums discussed by Yehezkel ($40,000 to $60,000) and Defendant 2 ($60,000 to $70,000) roughly reflect the amount that was deposited at the end of the day into the receiver's account, with the lack of accuracy being a result of the passage of time and the amount of the sum in relation to the financial situation of those involved; (e) The fact that it has been proven that Yehezkel frequently used the defendant for the purpose of transferring (legitimate) funds to various entities in Israel, so that the transfer of funds to Ben-Eliezer, through the defendant's account, is also consistent with the way of financial conduct that characterized Yehezkel and the defendant's business and friendship relations; (f) Stoller's credible testimony, which described how the defendant told him, in real time, that the sum of money requested by him was required for the purpose of transferring it to Ben-Eliezer, and in light of the request of his accomplice (Yehezkel); (g) The proximity of the time (six days) between the transfer of the funds from Stoller to the defendant, and later from the defendant to the receiver's account, as this is learned from the bank documents that were submitted.