The defense method, only in August 2013, was the defendant able to understand that there might be a need to conduct a proceeding within the walls of the court, since up to that date the parties had been in continuous contacts, with the defendant convinced that his claims would be accepted, and that the tax assessment would be canceled or some kind of compromise would be formulated. The defense further explained that the choice of Ben-Eliezer's testimony was made by the defendant's attorneys, who chose the witnesses solely according to their potential ability to make it clear to the court that the defendant's center of life was abroad. The defense emphasized that the transfer of funds to Ben-Eliezer that was carried out in 2011 (a loan, according to it) cannot be connected to the affidavit signed by Ben-Eliezer in 2013, and his testimony in the tax appeal at the beginning of 2014. It was further argued in this context that it is not possible to view the testimony as meeting the definition of "an action related to his position".
- As part of "The Fifth Time Station", I will focus on five issues:
The first, the defendant's economic interest in the tax proceedings;
The second, the date on which the defendant understood that proceedings might take place that might require the hearing of testimonies;
The third, the defendant's interest that a person like Ben-Eliezer support his arguments in the tax proceedings;
The fourth, Was the transfer of the money brought to the attention of counsel for the defendant in the tax appeal?;
Fifth, the affidavit and testimony of Ben-Eliezer in the tax appeal.
The examination of the question of whether the alleged economic interest can be regarded as the purpose underlying the transfer of the money will be examined, as stated above, only after reviewing the external evidentiary indications.
The Defendant's Economic Interest in the Tax Proceedings
- I will not elaborate on this point, since all the testimonies show that a decision in favor of the defendant in the tax proceedings (whether in proceedings conducted by the Tax Authority or in the framework of the tax appeal) means saving huge sums of money. I noted above what the defendant said in relation to the assessment that was received only in relation to the tax year 2005 (about NIS 350 million), while it is even possible to refer to what he said in his interrogation at the police, where he defined the sentence as:A Trial of Billions" (P/1A, p. 33, s. 4). The conclusion will not change even if I give some weight to the defendant's additional claim in his testimony, according to which this is a baseless assessment that is inconsistent with his income, since these are still huge sums. The fact that it was clear to the defendant that the issuance of a tax assessment for 2005 was a "first swallow" for assessments to be issued for additional years (as indeed happened), but intensified the significant economic interest he held in view of the 2005 assessment.
It can therefore be determined that the defendant's economic interest in the tax proceedings was a very significant economic interest.