(a) Ben-Zaken, who is an enterprising and dominant person, was the one who was in contact with Haim Leibowitz before establishing the partnership with the ACC, And he was the one who decided about entering into a partnership in the same oil drilling venture. The defendant, and there is no dispute about this, was informed of Ben-Zaken's desire and later on of Ben-Zaken's decision to join forces with Leibowitz and the ACC. There is no dispute that during the meeting with Leibowitz, Ben-Zaken asked to call and consult with the defendant in light of his familiarity with the oil field, and the defendant believed that entering the venture would constitute a mistake.
(b) A review of the indictment shows that All actions taken In the context of the Petroleum Council, they were attributed to Ben-Zaken And not to the defendant, and this is also the case with the prosecution's words in its summaries in the context of Ben-Zaken: "... There is no dispute that he was the living spirit and the working spirit in front of the people of the Petroleum Council" (paragraph 191 of the summaries of the claim).
(c) Ben-Zaken was the one who founded the organization of the meeting with Noble Energy's representatives, and the defendant did not even participate in that meeting (Ben-Zaken's testimony, Prov. p. 957, paras. 2-19)
(d) Ben-Zaken's testimony regarding the level of trust that prevailed between him and the defendant in the management of their joint business was not contradicted, as was his testimony regarding his high level of dominance in those businesses compared to the degree of dominance of the defendant, who has, as will be recalled, many other businesses, mainly abroad. The basic division that emerges from the various testimonies is such that the "capitalist" is the defendant, while the entrepreneur and the "manager" are Ben-Zaken.
In this context, see Ben-Zaken's words in his interrogation, as they were quoted when he was interrogated in court and approved by him: