Moreover, all the data show that the defendant did not "live" the company's activity, did not receive a salary from it, its employees did not know him, and it was not proven that he was aware in real time of its profit cycles.
The conclusion that emerges from the above is that Ben-Eliezer's specific assistance to B&E also helped the defendant, but against the background of all the data, the intensity of the contribution to the defendant can be defined as minimal.
Does Ben-Eliezer's action constitute a deviation from the norm?
- The prosecution sought to determine that Ben-Eliezer's action in favor of the defendant's economic interest constituted an abnormal deviation, in a manner that constitutes circumstantial evidence of the connection between the gift and his action.
Beyond the difficulty of making such a determination, against the background of Ben-Eliezer's death and the court's inability to address his version, I will note that from a material point of view, too, it appears that the prosecution's position raises difficulties.
On the face of it, the specific assistance provided by Ben-Eliezer was in line with the interests of the State of Israel, both in terms of strengthening and encouraging local manufacturers and business owners, and in everything related to strengthening Israel's foreign relations, by way of maintaining the activity of business owners within the framework of the Quiz Agreement. As it appears from the evidence presented by the prosecution (for example, from Eskin's testimony), other parties, including Silvan Shalom and Ehud Barak, also assisted in the realization of these interests, without alleging that these were improper actions.
And if there was a need to illustrate the above, the prosecution should have examined the testimony of the public servant Khoury, who, as recalled, being the public servant responsible for the implementation of the Quiz Agreement, referred Iskin and Uri Motzafi to Ben-Eliezer in order for him to try to assist in obtaining the visas.