The defendant was also later asked about the purpose of the transfer of the funds, and even then he persisted in his version that nothing was needed from Ben-Eliezer.
This is what he testified:
"Q. What was the purpose of transferring the funds to Fouad? What did you get out of it?
- Did I get out of it?
- What happened?
- Nothing, ma'am. I didn't get anything, I just helped a person who needed help who is my friend and that's what I could... What can he do... What can he help me? In what?" P/1A, p. 47, s. 17).
And later on:
"Fouad Ben-Eliezer, I don't need anything from him, he can't help me with anything, my help to him as a friend..." (P/1A, p. 48, s. 18).
- Admittedly, the defendant was not directly interrogated regarding Ben-Eliezer's involvement in the tax appeal, but it was he who referred to the tax appeal and told about a certain witness who testified on his behalf in the tax appeal (P/1A, p. 29, s. 16 - p. 31, s. 4).
Against the background of the aforesaid reference made on behalf of the defendant, who "put the tax appeal on the table", and even if he believed that there was no connection between the transfer of the money and the testimony, it would have been expected that he would have noted that Ben-Eliezer testified in his favor in that proceeding, but as stated, the defendant persisted in his claim that Ben-Eliezer was not needed for anything and did not ask for anything.
It was only in his second interrogation with the police that the issue of Ben-Eliezer's testimony in his favor in the tax proceeding came up, and even then, it was at the initiative of Investigator Peretz who accused the defendant that Ben-Eliezer had testified in his favor. In response, the defendant stated that there was no connection between the transfer of the money and that testimony (P/2A, p. 78, starting with para. 33).
In paragraph 210 of its summaries, the prosecution argued that the transfer of the money was not even mentioned in the testimony of the defendant in the tax appeal – a claim that can also be seen as consistent with the same trend, and was not denied by the defense in its summaries. Insofar as the defendant believed that the loan was duly reported, it could have been expected that the transfer of the money would come up in court alongside the explanation that it was a loan that was duly reported.