- Two of the alleged factual systemsare included in the indictment in the chapter dealing with "the relationships between the defendants", and according to the prosecution, even if they should not be seen as formulating an offense, they indicate the nature and nature of the relationship of interest:
(a) Future Profit from a Potential Transaction between the State of Israel and Gazprom
At the beginning of their acquaintance, when Ben-Eliezer was Minister of Infrastructures, the defendant worked to help him maintain contacts and meetings with oil and gas companies in Russia and Azerbaijan, and one of the companies that the defendant connected with Ben-Eliezer was the Russian oil and gas company Gazprom. The connection resulted in negotiations for the purchase and transportation of gas to Israel, but at the end of the day, no agreement was reached between the state and Gazprom.
It was argued that to the extent that an agreement had been entered into (which was not concluded at the end of the day), it would have yielded a significant profit for the crane company, since the defendant planned to provide services ancillary to the agreement through this company, which he owned.
(b) A loan given to Yariv Ben-Eliezer
According to what is stated in the indictment, during 2009, Yariv Ben-Eliezer (son of Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, hereinafter: Rival) to the defendant and Ben-Zaken, requesting that they help him enter into a partnership in an independent business. Following this request, the defendant provided a loan in the sum of NIS 200,000 to NIS 300,000 at Yariv's request for the purpose of investing in the franchise. The indictment states that it is not known what happened to this loan. In addition, Ben-Zaken made sure to add Yariv as a partner in the franchise of the "Greg" café in the Arena Mall in Herzliya, which at the time was owned by the defendant and Ben-Zaken through the Manofim company.
- The two additional factual systems, according to the claim, are connected to the transfer of the funds to Ben-Eliezer on September 26, 2011, both in terms of the defendant's mindset at the time of the transfer of the money to Ben-Eliezer, and in light of the claim that Ben-Eliezer, in both cases, helped promote the defendant's economic interests: