Either way, and beyond locating the four documents In the defendant's folder on the crane server, it appears that the defendant received To his email addresscopies of the draft of the accompanying employment contract, already on the day of the meeting between Ben-Eliezer and Gazprom and even the next day.
On the face of it, and insofar as the defense's argument was true to the absence of an economic interest of any kind, there was no reason for the crane company, its owners (the defendant), its employees (Orit Vaknin) and parties in other companies known to the defendant (Masha Petros) to show any interest in a transaction that is ancillary to the potential transaction between the State of Israel and Gazprom. It should be emphasized that this is not only a draft of the accompanying employment contract, but also the receipt of two different documents (from an anonymous source) documenting the meeting that took place between Ben-Eliezer and Gazprom.
Consideration must also be given to the fact that at no stage, in real time, did the defendant repudiate these documents, and did not inform any of those involved in sending the documents to him, that he had no interest in them, that it was not clear to him why they were being sent to him, etc.
The proximity of the dates between the dates of the transfer of the documents (20 June 2008 – 24 June 2008) and the date of the meeting between Ben-Eliezer and Gazprom (23 June 2008) also supports the conclusion that in those few days "around the meeting" between Ben-Eliezer and Gazprom, it was decided to try and examine the feasibility of the accompanying transaction.
In my opinion, and even if the question of "the idea of the accompanying transaction" remains unanswered, the data detailed above are sufficient to establish a conclusion regarding the defendant's knowledge of those documents, to indicate the existence of an economic interest that he had in the potential transaction between the State of Israel and Gazprom, and at the very least: To shift the burden of bringing evidence, as a kind of tactical burden, to prove otherwise.