There is a reason for the defense's argument that the prosecution did not present weighty evidence that would dispel the factual fog.
Thus, for example, Yariv was not summoned to testify, and his version cannot be used, if it was taken at all. I do not see it necessary to address the defense's argument that this difficulty should be attributed to the duty of the prosecution, since whether this is the case or otherwise, in practice – the difficulty in clearing up the factual fog regarding the transfer of the money was created by the very absence of a version on behalf of an adversary.
There is no dispute that during the course of the trial, bank statements were not presented, whether of the defendant or of an adversary, which could have been used for the purpose of examining the claim, and this too is sufficient to leave the factual ambiguity intact. This fact is of real importance, since according to the defendant, and to the extent that he had transferred such a sum to the adversary, he would have done so by an orderly bank transfer, as he did when he was asked by Ben-Eliezer to transfer him a sum for the purpose of assisting in the purchase of an apartment, and as he did with many loans that he made to other people that were proven in the defense case.
During his interrogation, and so I got the impression, the defendant tried to recall in an authentic way the question of whether or not he had transferred a sum of money to the adversary, when he claimed that even if he did, there was nothing wrong with that. In this context, an examination of the defendant's conduct during the interrogation shows that the defendant urged the investigators to clarify the matter with Yariv (P/2A, p. 15, s. 30), and in his further interrogation he even asked the interrogators to allow him to speak with Mr. Yigal Asraf, who manages his bank account in Switzerland, in order to check whether or not he transferred money to Yariv. The investigators forbade the defendant to carry out the said examination (P/3A, p. 8, s. 10 - p. 9, s. 10), and as I explained above, no independent examination carried out by the investigating unit in connection with the said sum with the same party specified by the defendant or another was submitted as evidence.