In section 19 (section 18 of the amended indictment in Ben-Zaken's case), the opening sentence was omitted, meaning that the actions were carried out "in accordance with Ben-Eliezer's aspiration to promote the interests of the oil company"; In section 19(a), the phrase "and to exert pressure on him" was deleted; Section 20 (Section 19 of the amended indictment in Ben-Zaken's case) deleted the definition of Ben-Zaken's actions as "improper pressure"; Section 20(a) deleted the alleged requirement that the meeting with Matza take place "the next day, in exceptional places and times".
The actions detailed in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the indictment, regarding the reservations made in the indictment filed in the case of Ben-Zaken, were not in dispute between the parties, especially since Ben-Zaken and Azoulay admitted and were convicted of carrying out these actions, which will be referred to in the verdict as "Actions vis-à-vis the Petroleum Council".
I have noted these things because it is important to clarify, already now, that in the context of obtaining the Ashdod meter license, the only two actions described in the indictment as actions carried out by Ben-Eliezer on behalf of the defendant (and the oil company) and were in front of the defendant's eyes when he transferred the money to him, are the alleged promotion of a meeting between the people of the oil company and the CEO of Noble Energy and conversations that he allegedly conducted with the head of the Petroleum Council.
(b) Testimony given by Ben-Eliezer in favor of the defendant in the income tax appeal
On December 21, 2011, the Ashkelon Tax Assessor issued an assessment order to the defendant, in which he determined that the defendant was an Israeli resident, and therefore obligated to pay income tax to the Tax Authority. This assessment was issued after objection hearings that the defendant has held before him since 2009. On January 4, 2012, the defendant filed a motion with the Beer Sheva District Court for an extension of the time for filing an appeal against the tax assessor's decision, which was filed on December 4, 2012 (hereinafter: Tax AppealIn the framework of the appeal, the defendant claimed that he was not a resident of Israel, and therefore was not obligated to pay tax.