In the same context, I also considered referring to the testimony of Uri Motsafi, who described how he contacted former minister Ra'anan Cohen (without connection and without the defendant's knowledge) with an identical request for assistance in dealing with the Egyptian embassy.
And this is from the testimony of Uri Motsafi:
"... In 2005-2006, we traveled there, it was difficult, we traveled, we got a visa from here from there under pressure from a military man. Pressure from Raanan Cohen, Pressure from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, pressure from the Ministry of Finance. We have received visas" (Prov. p. 220, s. 2).
The provision of assistance as stated above, which was also localized, was confirmed by the testimony of Raanan Cohen (Prov. p. 1609, s. 10), without arguing that this is an action of any improper dimension.
It therefore follows that I have not been presented with sufficient data (and especially "breadth" data) to enable it to determine that the action carried out by Ben-Eliezer constitutes a deviation from the norm.
Is there a causal connection between the assistance provided by Ben-Eliezer and the second transfer of funds?
- The decision in this arena of dispute weighs all the facts and factual determinations detailed so far, together with an examination of the various pieces of evidence and the arguments of the parties regarding the alleged connection between Ben-Eliezer's assistance in the years 2007-2008 and the transfer of NIS 500,000 to his account by the defendant on January 21, 2012.
- An examination of all the evidence and the arguments of the parties leads to an unequivocal conclusion that the defendant's version regarding the absence of a connection between Ben-Eliezer's assistance and the transfer of the funds is true.
I will discuss the various layers that underlie my conclusion.
(a) The sum of money was given at Ben-Eliezer's request and not at the defendant's initiative - There was no dispute between the parties on this issue, and to a large extent its correctness can also be learned from the identical request that Ben-Eliezer made to defendant 2. Admittedly, the offense of bribery can also begin by way of demanding a bribe, but in this case, the fact that the defendant did not initiate the transfer of the money to Ben-Eliezer constitutes a layer in the final conclusion, which joins additional layers.