The indictment alleges that in the framework of the "give and take" relationship that took place between Ben-Eliezer and the defendant, the defendant asked Ben-Eliezer to testify on his behalf in the tax appeal, and to support his claim that his center of life was not in Israel, in the expectation that Ben-Eliezer's public status would have an impact on the acceptance of his claim. It was argued that the significance of accepting the defendant's appeal was the savings of paying taxes on a huge scale.
On October 24, 2013, Ben-Eliezer signed an affidavit in which he testified that he knew the defendant in the course of his role as Minister of Infrastructures, that he was on friendly terms with him, and that to the best of his acquaintance with the defendant, the latter's center of life was not in Israel. The affidavit was submitted to the court on behalf of the defendant, and on January 20, 2014, Ben-Eliezer even testified in court about the contents of his affidavit. It was claimed that both in the affidavit and in the testimony, Ben-Eliezer harnessed the full weight of his public status in support of the defendant's claim regarding his residency. It was further argued that in order to strengthen the defendant's main argument in the tax appeal, Ben-Eliezer declared that he knew the defendant in Moscow, even though they had recognized him in Israel. In his testimony in court, Ben-Eliezer was even asked whether in addition to the assistance given to him by the defendant in holding contacts and meetings with companies in the oil and gas sector, he received additional assistance from him, and he answered in the negative, despite the fact that as of that point in time he had received NIS 1,490,000 from him. On January 8, 2015, the Beer Sheva District Court rejected the defendant's tax appeal, and ruled that in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, he is an Israeli resident.
According to the indictment, the bribe money paid to Ben-Eliezer "created Ben-Eliezer's dependence on the defendant," which was reflected in the actions Ben-Eliezer carried out on behalf of the defendant (also in the framework of the tax appeal).