As for the defendant, no proof was provided that would have proved involvement in promoting that meeting, knowledge in real time (or close to it) about the circumstances that led to its taking place, and a possible assumption on his part that Ben-Eliezer was assisting in promoting his business by organizing a meeting with senior officials at Noble Energy (an assumption, as stated, was not proven even with respect to Ben-Eliezer).
Ben-Eliezer's conversation with Mimran in favor of promoting the interests of Shemen
- In section 18 of the indictment, it is alleged that on a date unknown to the accuser, and while Ben-Eliezer served as minister, he was detained until the end of the proceedings (31 March 2009 – 19 January 2011), he spoke with Mimran, who served as the oil commissioner in the Ministry of Infrastructures and headed the Petroleum Council, and asked him to make decisions that would benefit the oil company. It was also claimed that Azoulay also approached Mimran with similar, repeated requests.
There was no dispute that Mimran was a key figure in the decisions made by the Petroleum Council, even though he did not have the right to vote. This is a veteran professional who has earned professional trust for many years in the public service in relevant positions.
- According to the method of prosecution, there is room to adopt Mimran's testimony in court, based on it to determine that Ben-Eliezer approached him improperly, with the intention of promoting the economic interests of the defendant and the oil company.
- The defense methodMimran's testimony in court should be rejected, since this testimony is the result of a partial refreshing of memory, which was done on the basis of reading the written statement in which the interrogator Superintendent Chai Biton omitted (hereinafter: Investigator Biton) A series of statements denying the existence of a conversation between Mimran and Ben-Eliezer. In its summaries, the defense made a careful comparison of Mimran's written testimony with the transcript of the interrogation recording, and argued that once Mimran's memory was refreshed and moved to his testimony in court, on the basis of the written statement, Mimran felt that he had to "stick to his incriminating version," whereas in practice, if he had been required to transcribe his interrogation, he would have discovered that he had categorically ruled out any intervention on Ben-Eliezer's behalf.
The defense emphasized that even if the court adopts Mimran's testimony, this does not indicate that the defendant knew about these actions, or that he would assist Ben-Eliezer in any way regarding Mimran, and therefore the basis for the prosecution's argument regarding the purpose of transferring the money to Ben-Eliezer was omitted.