"Defendant: Are you in Tel Aviv tomorrow?
Ben-Zaken: I don't know, I think no, the day I'm in Ashdod, after that in Tel Aviv, in Herzliya I have, I have a meeting with uh.
Defendant: Oh, I'll be too, with whom?
Ben-Zaken: Nobel
Defendant: Oh well, I'm in it tomorrow, I'm in Tel Aviv tomorrow?
Ben-Zaken: Good"
The next day, on the day of the meeting, the two talk again:
"Ben-Zaken: I'm here in Herzliya, I was in the BIG, I saw uh... Your warmth... Oh Naftali.
Defendant: Well?
Ben-Zaken: And now I'm going from here to a meeting with Noble Energy
Defendant: And after that?
Ben-Zaken: I'll spend half an hour here, where are you?
Defendant: In Papagya, now I just entered, come on" (Conversation 1082 B/30).
It can be learned from the date on which the update was held, but mainly from the contents of the two conversations, that the defendant's update was not at the forefront of Ben-Zaken's eyes, who noted the meeting in a laconic manner, and it is clear that the defendant, for his part, did not express any special interest in the meeting with representatives of the Nobel Company. This conclusion is also derived from the fact that Ben-Zaken informed Leibowitz as early as December 1, 2010 (the day the meeting was scheduled) Differently from the date on which he informed the defendant, and also from the absence of any questions on behalf of the defendant. I will note that the defendant was described by Vaknin as a person whose interest in a certain thing causes him to "bother" him until he receives answers, and in Vaknin's words: "... If something bothers him he wants to know, he wants to be updated, it's not, he can't postpone it" (Prov. p. 441, s. 1).
It is important to note that during the relevant period, from the date of the organization of the meeting (December 1, 2010) to the date of its holding (December 6, 2010) and even afterwards, there was continuous listening to Ben-Zaken's telephone line, and no evidence was found in that eavesdropping of additional reports that he reported to the defendant about the meeting taking place (whether by call or by text message). No e-mail correspondence was found indicating that the defendant was updated with the aforementioned derivative.
- Moreover, no evidence was presented that Ben-Zaken informed his partners in the meeting (Leibowitz, Vaknin and Schiff) about the manner in which the meeting was organized (see Schiff's statement submitted with consent – P/287 Q. 279-283; Vaknin's testimony in Prov. p. 474, s. 11; Leibowitz's statement submitted with consent – P/285 Q. 228). Although there is a possibility that Ben-Zaken "downplayed" Ben-Eliezer's alleged involvement in promoting the meeting to his partners, it is clear that if anything can be deduced from the words of his partners in the meeting, this is a conclusion that is inconsistent with the prosecution's claim regarding Ben-Eliezer's involvement. And certainly with regard to the defendant's knowledge of that alleged involvement.
- Another relevant fact can be found in the email correspondence that was exchanged between representatives of the oil company and representatives of Noble Energy after the meeting (P/47 - P/53), which show that no one bothered to add the defendant as one of the recipients of the correspondence, and in any case he himself did not write, even a single email on the matter.
- An evidentiary indication can also be found in the conversation that Ben-Zaken had with the defendant on 28 December 2010 (call 4644 B/30) dealing with the question of the operator ("the operator", as he was called by some of the witnesses). From the aforementioned conversation, it appears that the defendant believed that Leibowitz had reached an agreement with an operator named API, but Ben-Zaken updated that this is a company called ASP, but no cooperation agreement was formulated with it.
The defense claimed, in the context of the aforementioned conversation, the following: "In light of this conversation, it is absolutely clear that Avraham was not informed of this. Avraham was sure that there was an operator, and that Leibowitz closed with an operator. Avraham does not ask Ben-Zaken what happened with Nobel why there is no continuity of the meeting – nothing and nothing. Abraham knows that there is ATP. For the avoidance of doubt, this conversation takes place only three weeks after the meeting between Shemen's representatives and Nobel's representatives, while the talks between Noble and Shemen are ostensibly underway" (Section 163 of the defense's summaries).