The Defendant's Economic Interest in the Transfer of the Drilling Rights
- There should be no dispute that by virtue of the defendant's being a controlling shareholder in the Manofim company, which held 25% of the shares of the oil company, it was inferred that the defendant had an economic interest in the transfer of the drilling rights. To this, it should be added that in addition to Manofon's share in the oil company, the defendant also independently held 12.5% of the shares of the oil company.
The economic interest is also learned from the significant investments that the defendant made, personally, in an oil company, which amounted to tens of millions (in the context of the exact amount, it is possible to point to various variations in the evidence material, but it is clear, in every possible variation, that it is tens of millions of shekels). I am aware of the fact that some of the investments were made in more advanced stages, and after a cooperation agreement was signed between Shemen and the CDCHowever, this does not change the picture that indicates the existence of an economic interest on the part of the defendant.
See in this regard the testimony of the defendant – Prov. p. 1209, para. 10; Prov. p. 1260, s. 25.
I will also note that I am prepared to accept the prosecution's argument that the fact (which became known later) that the drilling did not yield what the various parties involved expected (since no oil was found off the coast of Ashdod) is irrelevant to the question of the existence of an economic interest, a question that is examined at an earlier point on the timeline.
Given the above, and even if we are dealing with a very wealthy defendant whose business spans the globe, it is clear that he held an economic interest, and in light of the sums in question, it can even be defined as a significant economic interest.
The manner of cooperation between the defendant and Ben-Zaken in all matters relating to the Shemen company and the transfer of rights
- The evidence shows that Ben-Zaken was more dominant in all of Shemen's activities in the context of the drilling license, while updating the defendant, from time to time, regarding various figures. The degree of the defendant's independent involvement increased only after the negotiations with Noble Energy failed, and the need arose to find another operator to become a partner in the venture.
This conclusion is based on the following reasoning: