Attorney Solomonovich also noted that she first heard about the transfer of the money from Ben-Eliezer and not from the defendant, who only afterwards, and to her question, did he tell her that he had lent Ben-Eliezer money.
She noted as follows:
"... I only knew what Fouad reported to the Knesset. Only from Fouad... Later, when we talked about the issue of the loan itself, Avraham did say that there was a loan when he was very ill and that it was given to him for the purpose of purchasing an apartment to the best of my recollection" (Prov. p. 1699, s. 6).
Adv. Slomonovich did not recall how the financial issue arose, but this issue can be based on the testimony of Adv. Porat, who testified that the question arose on his own initiative in light of his fear of "surprises" during testimony in court.
- Even if the testimony of Attorneys Porat and Solomonovich is consistent on the "formal" level with the defendant's testimony that "his attorneys knew about the transfer of the money before Ben-Eliezer's testimony in court," consideration should be given to a number of significant facts that were proven in the testimonies of the defendant's attorney in the tax proceeding: (a) The defendant did not report to his counsel about the transfer of the money to Ben-Eliezer at the time of the compilation of the list of potential witnesses, a report that was ostensibly required in view of the amount of money in question; (b) The defendant did not report to his counsel about the transfer of the money even during the preparation and submission of the affidavits to the court (October 2013); (c) The report on the transfer of the money, which was described as a "loan," was made only during the preparatory meeting with Ben-Eliezer, about three days before his testimony in court, and this only in light of Adv. Porat's keen senses, and his fear of "surprises"; (d) The fact that according to the agreement (the nature of which I will discuss later), the date of repayment of the loan was About two years ago The date on which the testimonies were heard in court, which has not yet been returned, was not mentioned by the defendant or by Ben-Eliezer; (e) Adv. Sharon, who was a central factor in the tax proceedings and the preparation for the court hearing, but did not participate in the preparatory meeting, did not know throughout the entire period about the transfer of the money (from the defendant or from Ben-Eliezer). In fact, Attorney Sharon learned about the transfer of the money only from Attorney Solomonovich's whisper in his ear, during Ben-Eliezer's testimony in court.
On the basis of the above, the conclusion is required that the transfer of the money to Ben-Eliezer, prior to the submission of the affidavits and Ben-Eliezer's testimony in court, was characterized by a clear trend of concealment.
- An examination of the defendant's first statement during his interrogation by the police shows that the same clear trend of concealment continued there as well, since the defendant persisted in his claim that He didn't need anything from Ben-Eliezer and didn't ask him for anything He did not mention anything about Ben-Eliezer's testimony in the tax appeal.
He noted as follows: "... You can only explain one thing to me, what did I need from Fouad? What did Avraham need from Fouad? Mrs. ... Is there anything I've ever asked for, should I have asked him for something?" (P/1A, p. 40, s. 35).