(8) A gap of more than 3 years between the date of the "assistance" and the date of the loan - In accordance with my factual determinations, the last date on which Ben-Eliezer assisted B&E in obtaining visas was in 2008, so that a period of more than three years elapsed between the date of the assistance and the date of the loan given by the defendant in January 2012 (and even longer if we take into account that the meeting in Ben-Eliezer's office took place in 2007).
It is true, and thus the prosecution is justified, that the offense of bribery can also take shape where the element of 'favor' existed at an earlier date than the element of 'gift', and no obligation of simultaneity should be created between the two acts.
At the same time, where a long time has elapsed from the date of the formulation of the element of "ad" to the date of the "gift," this can be seen as an evidentiary indication of the authenticity of the version regarding the lack of connection between the two actions. In this context, we may refer to Parashat Gardens, where the Supreme Court accepted the defense argument, according to which "The longer the time elapsed between the action and the bestowal, the less likely the proposition that there was a 'pro-favor' relationship between the two" (p. 376, paragraph 12 of the judgment).
In our case, the significant period of time that elapsed between Ben-Eliezer's specific assistance to B&E and the loan made available to him by the defendant, and certainly against the background of the friendship between the two, and the rest of the data detailed above, constitutes a clear and clear indication of the authenticity of the version according to which the loan was made on the basis of my friends, and only my friends, and without the defendant giving any weight to that specific assistance that Ben-Eliezer gave to B&E. Years earlier.
(9) Ben-Eliezer's assistance to B&E was localized, and had a minimal contribution for the defendant, and was perceived in his consciousness as having no dimension of corruption, and he was not required to "pay for it" or "be grateful" by way of transferring money to Ben-Eliezer - Similar to the fact that the "assistance" was given more than 3 years before the date of the loan, it can be said that the fact that it was a specific assistance, and had a minimal contribution for the defendant, also strengthens the authenticity of the defendant's words. This is all the more reinforced when we are dealing with the assistance provided by other parties over the years, and which does not involve a dimension of corruption.
- All of the data detailed above lead to the conclusion that the defendant – Mr. Roy Motsafi – gave a true version in his interrogation by the police and the court, namely that the transfer of the funds to Ben-Eliezer was given as a loan (distinct from a grant), at Ben-Eliezer's request, in view of the deep friendship they maintained for more than three decades, and against the background of Ben-Eliezer's complex medical condition. Mr. Motzfi acted like a true friend, and he responded to his friend's request out of a desire to help him purchase an apartment that would suit his difficulties and limitations, without checking his tzitzit as to the necessity of the loan.
The loan was given without direct or indirect connection to the specific assistance that Ben-Eliezer had given to B&E, a few years earlier, in exactly the manner that Mr. Motsafi had insisted on from his first interrogation and throughout the entire process. The specific assistance that Ben-Eliezer gave to B&E was a minimal contribution to Mr. Motsafi, and was perceived in his consciousness, and rightly so, as having no dimension of corruption, and in any case he did not need to "pay for it" or "be grateful" by way of transferring money to Ben-Eliezer.
- Ostensibly, the verdict could have been concluded on this point, but the prosecution still argued that there was a motive Extra which was the basis of the defendant's action, and this time Future motive – "so that it will usually be biased."
The prosecution referred at the stage of presenting the evidence, as well as in its summaries, to a number of companies that were owned (wholly or partially) by the defendant in Israel, and therefore claimed that the transfer of the funds to Ben-Eliezer was made, inter alia, on the basis of the existence of economic interests in Israel. According to the prosecution, things are even more beautiful in light of the presentation of Ben-Eliezer's candidacy for the presidency of the state, a move that would have allowed the defendant to use Ben-Eliezer's future services for the purpose of promoting the companies he owns.