The questions raised by the prosecution in its summaries, the main ones of which I have addressed, are not of the intensity required for the purpose of undermining the defense's version, and they certainly do not constitute a basis for a determination, at the level of certainty required in a criminal trial, that the first transfer was made with the defendant's money.
- Since the offense of the prohibition of money laundering was alleged based on Exclusively Regarding the first transfer of funds, and the prosecution's factual claims have not been proven, it seems that there is room to order the acquittal of the defendant of this offense.
I will mention that in the indictment or in the summaries no alternative thesis was presented by the prosecution, and it was not claimed (and rightly so, in my opinion) that Even if it is determined That the defendant's account served only as a "conduit" for the transfer of a loan from Ezekiel to Ben-Eliezer, should be regarded as an improper act that constitutes money laundering.
The activity of B&E, the scope of the assistance provided to it by Ben-Eliezer, the significance of the assistance for the company's activities, and the significance of the assistance for the defendant
- There is no dispute about the following basic facts: (a) At a certain point in time, a number of years after the second transfer of funds, Ben-Eliezer assisted B&E in obtaining entry visas to Egypt; (b) The defendant holds 25% of the shares of B&E engaged in the field of textile chemicals; (c) The extent of the defendant's involvement in the company's activity is minimal, and in practice – the company is managed by Uri Motsafi and Yaoz Eskin, each of whom held about 37.5% of the company's shares; The defendant has no professional connection to the field of chemicals, and in fact, apart from that assistance in organizing a meeting with Ben-Eliezer (as will be detailed below), no evidence was presented of any action he took on behalf of the company, on its behalf, or that could have had an impact on its profits.
B&E Company's Activity, the QIZ, and the difficulties encountered by the company
- The evidence shows that during the period relevant to the indictment, B&E operated in a number of markets, and there is no dispute that most of its activity focused on the sale of textile chemicals to the State of Egypt. In order to sell the chemicals, B&E employees were required to come to Egypt from time to time, and therefore required entry visas, which are granted for a period of 30 days, and were also required to obtain an updated visa for each entry separately.
- B&E's activity in Egypt was carried out against the backdrop of the agreement QIZ signed between the State of Israel, Egypt and the United States (hereinafter – The Quiz Agreement), where the essence of the agreement was described in the testimony of David Khoury, Senior Director of the Customs Administration of Israeli Exports and Free Trade Agreements, and who also serves as a member of the Quiz Committee and manages the entire issue of trade between Israel and Egypt (hereinafter – Holes).
Khoury described that without the Quiz Agreement, and since Egypt did not have a free trade agreement with the United States, products manufactured in Egypt and arriving in the United States would be subject to full customs duties. In accordance with the Quiz Agreement, and thus its dramatic advantage, any Egyptian company that manufactures its products using a certain percentage of raw materials originating in the State of Israel (ranging from 11.7% to 10.5%) will receive a significant tax benefit, since the product will be considered "Israeli". The Quiz Agreement encompasses many areas of activity, but its great advantage for Egypt was in the field of textiles, since customs rates in this field were particularly high, and in any case textiles were one of the main manufacturing sectors in Egypt. It should be noted that according to the testimony of Uri Motzfi, the tax benefit for Egypt was 28%.
- There is no dispute, and this is how it was described in the testimony of Eskin and Khoury, that both Israel, Egypt, and the United States shared economic interests and those related to strengthening foreign relations, which were expressed in the Quiz Agreement (testimony of Eskin – Prov. p. 95, s. 25; testimony of Khoury – Prov. at p. 1598, s. 16).
- Although all parties to the Quiz Agreement had clear interests, Israeli manufacturers and exporters encountered various difficulties in their contacts with the Egyptian authorities, including difficulties in obtaining entry visas that were required in order to maintain contact with manufacturing companies in Egypt and to formulate cooperation agreements and the sale of raw materials.
- These difficulties in obtaining visas were also the lot of B&E, and they were expressed, inter alia, in Eskin's letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated December 25, 2005, in which he stated the following:
"My name is Yaoz Eskin and I am the manager of the B&E International LTD. Our company manufactures chemicals for the textile industry. Following the signing of the agreement QIZ Between the U.S.-Egypt-Israel, we also got married to travel to Egypt and sell chemicals to the Egyptian textile industry to cover the 11.7% in accordance with the agreement. QIZTo our surprise, we encountered many refusals when applying for a visa to Egypt. My first trip was on 12/01/05 and since then I have personally visited Egypt 7 times. As mentioned, every time I get a visa, I also get 3 refusals. The reason is unknown. I promise you that I have never been arrested by the local police and in fact have had nothing to do with the police. Neither to me nor to any of my employees. A few weeks ago, there was a conference in Egypt following the QIZ I note that even for this important conference, I was denied a visa. I contacted the Honorable Minister Mr. Silvan Shalom, and even the Egyptian Ambassador to Israel, and finally I was granted the visa. When I applied for another visa, I was denied. I ask you, beyond the letter of the law, to settle the issue of visas, for me and my people, because it harms my work. I also note that I am aware of a number of people who travel and return from Egypt without any visa problems" (P/244).
- Eskin also sent similar letters on other occasions to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1 January 2006 - P/245) and to the Minister of Defense at the time, Ehud Barak (17 July 2007 - P/246). It should be noted that Eskin confirmed in his testimony, which the prosecution sought to adopt, that apparently following a request to Ehud Barak and the intervention of Barak's assistant, they were granted a visa. Eskin also noted that he had also contacted the Peres Center for Peace, Ron Pundak and other parties regarding the visas.
- The parties disagreed on the question of the cardinality of obtaining visas for the company's continued activity, and it seems to me that it is not possible to determine what the prosecution sought to determine, namely, that the continued refusal of the Egyptians to grant visas would have led to the collapse of the company – a determination that has a speculative dimension.
First, even if most of the company's activity was with Egyptians, it is not impossible that the "closure of the Egyptian channel" would have led the company to find new markets, as indeed happened in more advanced years (in view of the "closure" to visitors in January 2011, when the revolution broke out).