Caselaw

Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 4637-12-15 State of Israel – Tel Aviv District Attorney’s Office (Taxation and Economics) v. Binyamin Fouad Ben-Eliezer (Proceedings Stopped Due to Death The Defendant) - part 55

August 28, 2019
Print

The examination of the alleged facts in the context of those actions enumerated in the arena of dispute must therefore be carried out with the necessary caution, while examining The concrete evidence which were presented in the context of Ben-Eliezer and the defendant.

Decision in the Arenas of Dispute

The meeting between Shemen and senior officials at Noble Energy

Overview

  1. In the indictment, and there is no dispute about this, it was claimed that one of the conditions for receiving the license was a proven professional ability to drill oil, and in order to comply with this condition, Shemen sought to contract with Noble Energy, which is an international company that specializes in the exploration, drilling, development and production of natural gas and crude oil around the world.

There is no dispute that the meeting between Shemen and Noble Energy officials will take place on December 6, 2010 (without the defendant participating in it), and the dispute focuses on what is stated in section 17(b) of the indictment, according to which "Moving on to December 1, 2010, Ben-Eliezer contacted Noble Energy's media advisor, Eli Kamir (hereinafter – Kamir), through Defendant 4, in order to promote a meeting between Shemen and the CEO of Noble Energy International.".

The parties' arguments

  1. According to the prosecution, sufficient evidence was presented to the court to show that it was Ben-Eliezer who exerted his influence in favor of promoting the said meeting, while the defendant was aware of the existence of the meeting, and aware of the fact that it took place thanks to Ben-Eliezer's involvement (see, for example, paragraph 132 of the prosecution's summaries).

According to the defense, the meeting was organized at Ben-Zaken's request, with Azoulay intervening in the matter, and without any involvement of Ben-Eliezer or the defendant.  Moreover, the defense also argued that after the defendant was informed of the expected meeting, he expressed only a marginal interest in it, and in any case he was not informed or suspected of Ben-Eliezer's involvement in promoting it.

Previous part1...5455
56...160Next part