"Q: The business will continue to flow even if you don't travel specifically because there are people there who can travel and you can meet them in other places and they can come here and that's also what you did there.
A: They, they couldn't come here. The business would work, not as intensely as it worked, because we make the trip three or four times a month to push things forward. Obviously, we would have gone much better there,
Q: Okay.
A: But he could go,
Q: Between 2010 and 2015 you can't travel, right? Didn't you go?
A: We didn't go. You're right.
Q: In 2015 you had a very nice profit and also in 2010.
A: Yes.
Q: Right?
A: Well, so we've known each other for 8 years. In fact, we went to the United States four times with the Egyptians" (Prov. p. 94, S. 8).
Later, Eskin was asked and confirmed that alternatives to business activity in Egypt had been found (Prov. p. 94, s. 32).
The Significance of Assistance for the Defendant
- Since this was the scope of the assistance that Ben-Eliezer provided to B&E, and the speaker was referring to specific assistance (only part of which the defendant was aware), I did not see fit to address the derivative issue that was in dispute in detail The Meaning of Assistance For the Defendant I will suffice with two comments, from which the conclusion on this issue will be drawn:
The first - I am willing to accept the prosecution's argument that the fact that the defendant holds 25% of the ownership of B&E and that his brother also owns a share of the ownership and is employed by the company, is sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the assistance provided by Ben-Eliezer can be seen as helping the defendant as well.
The second - The defendant's financial situation is so strong, and the heart of his business in completely other areas that it is highly doubtful whether the large dividends distributed over the years in B&E, most of which were re-injected by the defendant into the company as an owner's loan, were significant to him.