(b) Ben-Eliezer's request to the defendant was justified as "a loan that is required against the background of his medical condition and the need to purchase a property that will suit his limitations and difficulties" - On this point as well, there was no dispute between the parties, and in this context as well, it is possible to refer to the identical request described by defendant 2 in his testimony. There was no dispute that the request was answered by someone who knew very well how complex the medical condition of Ben-Eliezer, who had been released a few months earlier from a long hospitalization, when his medical condition at the time he was hospitalized was defined as "between life and death."
(c) The loan application was presented to the defendant, who was a close friend of Ben-Eliezer and maintained a warm, close, and intense relationship with him for more than three decades, and was perceived by those around Ben-Eliezer as a real family member - In my previous remarks, I discussed the nature and nature of the extraordinary friendship that existed between Ben-Eliezer and the defendant. According to the case law, the strength of the friendship is one of the considerations that must be taken into account in order to decide the question of whether the gift constituted a bribery offense, and in our case – it can be determined that it is a friendship of the highest level. The strength of the friendship between Ben-Eliezer and the defendant explains very well why the defendant did not meticulously examine Ben-Eliezer's request for financial assistance due to a medical condition, why he did not check his tzitzit as to his ability to continue living in the same apartment, and why he did not examine Ben-Eliezer's financial ability before making the loan available to him.
(d) The money was given as a loan, and with the defendant assuming that it would be repaid in the future (and even made subtle inquiries throughout the period) - The defendant stated in his police interrogation that he had approached Ben-Eliezer several times in attempts to find out when the loan would be repaid, to which Ben-Eliezer replied that he would repay the loan "soon", and later told him that he planned to sell his old house, at which point he would repay the loan to him (P/6A, p. 68, beginning with para. 3). The defendant also stated that in light of Ben-Eliezer's answers, and at a certain point, he understood or feared that Ben-Eliezer had no intention of repaying the loan, and that he would be forced to "absorb" it. Although no testimonies were heard in support of this version, since only Ben-Eliezer and the defendant were partners in those conversations, I did not find any doubt about the defendant's statements, in view of my general impression of the authenticity of his statements both in his interrogation and in his testimony in court, and in the correspondence of the facts he gave in other derivatives to a variety of testimonies and documents.