A similar picture is also reflected in the testimony of Mordechai Friedman, the defendant's partner in Triple M (together with Moshe Terry), who described that although he held 80% of the company's shares, the management remained in his (Friedman's) hands and in the hands of Moshe Terry, while his involvement focused mainly on the issue of financing, as he put it: "On the formal functional level, bring money and he would bring" (Prov. p. 1569, s. 18). The witness also described that in many cases he used the defendant's business experience and consulted with him, but emphasized that the defendant did not manage anything.
- It should not be understood from the above that we are dealing with a "leaded" or "weak" businessman, but rather someone who has a management philosophy that enables his partners, on the basis of a relationship of trust, to make decisions even without his close accompaniment and specific approval of each and every detail. The same relationship of trust that underpinned the defendant's management philosophy existed very strongly in the business partnership with Ben-Zaken, whom he met when he was a teenager, and throughout the years he worked with his mother at the insurance agency.
At the same time, it is clear that at certain points in time, and beyond the flow of funds, the defendant was required to demonstrate greater involvement, as he did when he worked together with Leibowitz in negotiations with the CDC (which even required joint trips abroad). In the context of the above, it appears that the defendant's involvement was extremely essential in view of the fact that CDC is a subsidiary of Soker, which the defendant knew from his business activity in the oil field.
- It is also clear, and this is evident from all the testimonies, that from time to time the defendant was updated about some of the difficulties that arose in the transfer of the drilling rights and various actions taken in this context.
In this context, I will refer to the telephone conversations that took place between Ben-Zaken and the defendant and were recorded by wiretapping (P/30); The testimony of Haim Leibowitz, from which it emerged that the defendant served as a "mediator" between him and Ben-Zaken, after disputes arose between them, which were resolved even in the presence of Adv. Caspi (P/284, Q. 92; Prov. p. 1072, S. 17); Ben-Zaken's testimony, from which it emerged that from time to time he updated the defendant about various actions taken in connection with the transfer of the drilling rights; According to the testimony of Danny Vaknin, from which it emerged that the defendant was informed about the difficulties in the transfer of the rights and regarding the legal treatment by Adv. Caspi (Prov. p. 484, s. 16) and the defendant's testimony in court, according to which he was informed about the rejection of the request for the transfer of the rights by the Petroleum Council and the reasons for this postponement (Prov. p. 1204, Q. 1).
- I was required to characterize the business conduct of the defendant and Ben-Zaken, as a basis for the discussion of the question of whether the defendant was informed of concrete actions that were allegedly carried out by Ben-Eliezer for the benefit of the oil company.
Both the characterization of the business conduct of Ben-Zaken and the defendant, and the level of certainty required in the criminal trial, lead to the conclusion that the way to determine that the defendant knew of one action or another that was carried out for or on behalf of the oil company, cannot stop or amount to an "assumption" according to which "partners are accustomed to informing each other of such or other actions carried out by or on behalf of them", There is room to continue to walk in the evidentiary furrow in order to examine the question of the defendant's concrete knowledge of these and other actions, in sharper resolutions.