The inquiries that the defendant made with Olmert refer to the transfer of $250,000 as assistance in financing the legal counsel, but illustrate his understanding of the difficulty of transferring substantial sums of money to public servants, whether during their term of office or not, and this understanding strengthens the question that arises from the way he acted when Ben-Eliezer asked for what he requested.
- On the basis of the aforesaid, it must be determined that the aforementioned gaps between the agreement and reality, which are inconsistent with the defendant's version of the importance of the report and his desire that things should be so, constitute a significant evidentiary indication of the existence of an improper purpose on the part of the grantor.
- There is no dispute that the money was openly transferred from the defendant's bank account to Ben-Eliezer's account, which, according to the defense, is indicative of the absence of an intention to conceal and the absence of an improper purpose.
Even if the fact that the money was transferred to Ben-Eliezer openly can be seen as an indication of the absence of an improper purpose, I do not believe that in the unique circumstances before me this is a very powerful indication, and in any case it can be argued that it is precisely the apparent manner that is intended to "legitimize" the transfer of the money, while some of the real purposes remain hidden from view.
My position is based on the fact that alongside the transfer of the money openly, a "loan agreement" was drawn up that was claimed to have been presented to the relevant parties in the Knesset (and it was not proven that it was presented to any official body) which, as I have detailed, did not faithfully reflect reality.
The fact that the money was not returned until the investigation was opened
- In both the indictment and in its summaries, the prosecution viewed the fact of non-return of the money as one that "created Ben-Eliezer's dependence on the defendant, and maintained the relationship of bribery between them for an indefinite period."
In its arguments, the defense insisted on the defendant's desire to assist his friend Ben-Eliezer by way of a "gift" and not by way of a "loan", and hence its position that the fact that the money was not returned cannot be regarded as an incriminating indication.