The fact that Vaknin did not recall the circumstances that led to his involvement in receiving the draft of the accompanying employment contract and forwarding it to the defendant's email, can be explained in the years that passed from the date of the incident until his interrogation, and can be explained by his "technical" involvement, which was very marginal in all of his activities as CEO of Manofim. With regard to Ben-Zaken's testimony, and taking into account the fact that even according to the prosecution, this was a transaction that did not progress to maturity, not even approximately, it is certainly possible to understand why the matter was not brought before Ben-Zaken, whose main activity, as stated, is in the field of real estate assets.
The Second Time Station - Conclusion
- I noted the tactical burden placed on the defendant's shoulders to challenge the conclusion regarding his involvement in the ancillary transaction, which is based on the four documents found in the folder bearing his name on the Manofim company's server, the email correspondence that included copies of the draft accompanying employment contract, the proximity of the time and the absence of any indication, in real time, of his repudiation of the transmission of the correspondence to his attention.
An examination of the defense's arguments leads to the conclusion that the defendant failed to meet that tactical burden, and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the evidence that underlies the conclusion that he was involved in promoting the ancillary transaction.
Therefore, as is the case, and proof of involvement in promoting the ancillary transaction, it can be determined that the defendant had an intention in his heart to derive a profit from a transaction ancillary to a potential transaction between the State of Israel and Gazprom. I will note that I am convinced that the defendant's actions also stemmed from his desire to assist the interests of the State of Israel, as they were described to him by Ben-Eliezer. This last determination is consistent with my impression of the defendant's testimony, and with the fact that no evidence or allegation was presented regarding an attempt to harness the meeting between Ben-Eliezer and Suker for his economic interests, a claim that would have been necessary insofar as the defendant's actions had stemmed solely from an economic motive.