The fact that Ayelet Azoulay took care of Yariv's affairs, as we learn from the email addresses to Ben-Zaken, cannot necessarily be attributed, from a factual perspective, to the defendant's duty, since, as will be detailed below, there was a direct and independent relationship between Ayelet Azoulay and Ben-Zaken, as well as between Ben-Zaken and Yariv. Moreover, in his testimony in court, Ben-Zaken denied that he knew about the provision of a loan in favor of an adversary, and no evidence was presented to him that could contradict his version (Prov. p. 929, para. 10).
Eli Golan, Yariv's partner in Cafe Greg, also did not provide a description that could be seen as supporting the prosecution's claim, and all that can be learned from his statement, in the aforementioned context, is the statement that it was Ben-Zaken who "connected" him and Yariv, after he realized that he (Eli Golan) was looking for a partner for the purpose of opening a business (P/274).
The defense's argument that Yariv intended to purchase a franchise for the Soho restaurant but was rejected by the restaurant's owners seems to be consistent with Ben-Zaken's testimony (Prov. p. 928, paras. 1-21).
The Third Time Station - Summary
- I will summarize what was proven in the third time station, and say that the prosecution succeeded in proving that Yariv asked for a loan from the defendant but it was not proven that the defendant agreed to his request and transferred him any sum of money.
It is important to note that the prosecution did not attribute to the defendant, from the outset, any offense whatsoever in relation to that alleged transfer of funds to the adversary (which was not proven), so in any case the factual set detailed above is relevant only to an examination of the relationship that existed between the defendant and Ben-Eliezer, and against the background of the prosecution's claim that this relationship was characterized by a "give and take".
I do not believe that Yariv's request for a loan from the defendant, even if it was proven that the defendant agreed to it, can be viewed as relevant to the decision on the issues in dispute, in the absence of any claim of any connection between the loan request (which was not claimed to have been made with Ben-Eliezer's knowledge or consent) and events that will take place during the period and are not related to the opponent.