It seems to me that this conclusion is consistent with the evidence presented with respect to the nature of the "Ben-Zaken-Azoulay" axis, with the necessary addition – this is not only an independent and significant relationship, but a relationship in which the two members proved that they were willing to carry out improper actions in the framework of which they constitute a criminal offense.
Summary of the discussion of issues that are the basis for decision in the dispute arenas
- From an analysis of the three basic issues detailed above, with the various factual determinations that I have discussed, it emerges that even though the defendant held a significant economic interest, there is no reason to conclude "automatically", with the certainty required in a criminal trial, that the actions that were carried out in favor of that interest or in the name of that interest were necessarily carried out by Ben-Eliezer or necessarily while he (the defendant) was aware of them. This caution is required in view of the characterization of the conduct of the partnership between the defendant and Ben-Zaken, and in view of the independent axis that was created between Azoulay and Ben-Zaken (who, like his partner, held the same economic interest).
I would like to say that given the possibility, which is supported by the evidentiary conclusions detailed, that some of the actions were carried out by Azoulay at Ben-Zaken's initiative, and not necessarily at the initiative or knowledge of the defendant, all the relevant evidence in relation to the dispute scene must be examined in depth and examined, and it is not possible to suffice with the assumption that "since actions were taken in favor of the Shemen Company, this constitutes conclusive evidence of the existence of one understanding or another that prevailed between the defendant and Ben-Eliezer".
It is important to emphasize that just as "automatic" assumptions cannot be made to the defendant's obligation, so there is no reason to make "automatic" assumptions in his favor (which distance him from the "firing zone") solely by virtue of the characterization of the partnership between him and Ben-Zaken, and the existence of the independent "Ben-Zaken-Azoulay" axis.